G.R. No. L-38297 October 23, 1982 1.

1. The circumstances indicative of the manner by which the two brothers, as well as their
two companions, who apparently were not apprehended as they were not included in the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, information, attacked the hapless victim, would suffice to show conspiracy. They
vs. apparently had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises Capalac. Such a
MARIO CAPALAC, defendant-appellant. reaction, as noted at the outset, is quite understandable. It was not to be expected that
they would even bother to inquire why their brother was stabbed. It was enough that it
FERNANDO, C.J.: was done. They were impelled by a common purpose. They acted in concert. There is
sufficient basis for the finding of conspiracy then. As far back as United States v.
Magcamot, 2 a 1909 decision, Justice Mapa stressed as the essential element for conspiracy
It was not unexpected, considering the close family ties so traditional among Filipinos.
to exist the "concurrence of wills" and "unity of action and purpose." 3 A recent decision is
that the stabbing, apparently without provocation, of one Moises Capalac by Jimmy partial to the phrase, "tacit and spontaneous coordination," in the assault. 4 A careful analysis
Magaso, would be attended with serious, if not tragic, consequences. It happened on of the evidence by the lower court can yield no other conclusion but that conspiracy was duly
September 20, 1970 at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the scene of the gory proved.
incident being a duly licensed cockpit in the City of Iligan. The aggressor, attempting to
escape, was confronted by two brothers of Moises, Jesus Capalac, originally included in
2. crime was one of murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery being present. The
the information but now deceased, and appellant Mario Capalac. The attempt of Magaso
specific language of the Revised 'Penal Code calls for application: "There is treachery
to board a jeep was unsuccessful, he having alighted after two shots were fired in
when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
succession. Knowing that he was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
his hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not to be appeased. He was pistol-
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
whipped by appellant Mario Capalac, being dealt several blows on the head and the
make. 5 Magaso's situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile
face. After he had fallen to the ground, Jesus Capalac stabbed the deceased on the
and unavailing. His hands were raised in surrender. That notwithstanding, he was pistol-
chest three or tour times. He was brought to the hospital where he died, the cause, whipped. When lying prostrate on the ground, he was stabbed. It must be remembered that,
according to the coroner's report, being "hemorrhagic shock due to a wound of the according to the testimonial evidence, there were two other persons assisting the brothers
heart." Capalac. If they were not included in the information, the explanation would appear to be that
they managed to elude capture. There was no risk, therefore, to the aggressors, no hope for
The above facts are not open to dispute, the decision of the lower court and the briefs for the victim. 6 The trial court committed no error then in appreciating the circumstance of
both appellant and appellee being substantially in agreement. After trial duly held, Mario treachery as being present.
Capalac was convicted of murder. The lower court found that the crime was committed
with evident premeditation and treachery. The lower court also held that appellant took 3. The lower court erred, however, in finding the aggravating circumstances of evident
advantage of his position as a police officer and employed means or brought about premeditation, of means being employed or circumstances brought about to add
circumstances which added ignominy to the natural effects of his act. It sentenced him to ignominy to the natural effects of the act, and of the crime being committed with the
suffer the death penalty. Hence, this case is before this Tribunal for automatic review. 1 offender taking advantage of his official position as having attended the commission of
the crime. As early as 1903, Justice Mapa, in United States v. Alvares, 7 made clear that
The brief for the appellant prays for the reversal of the judgment and assigns four errors an aggravating circumstance must be "as fully proven as the crime itself. 8 He added:
as having been committed by the lower court. The first error speaks of the absence of "Without clear and evident proof of their presence, the penalty fixed by the law for the
conspiracy. The second and the third deny the existence of the qualifying as well as the punishment of the crime cannot be increased. 9 Moreover, insofar as evident premeditation is
aggravating circumstances, Lastly, the brief imputes as error of the lower court what it concerned, there is this relevant excerpt from the same opinion: "The record contains no
referred to as "discarding the ante mortem statement of the victim." As will be shown, evidence showing that the defendant had, prior to the moment of its execution, resolved to
there is no basis for reversal. The judgment, however, calls for modification. Murder was commit the crime, nor is there proof that this resolution was the result of meditation,
committed, the qualifying circumstance of alevosia being quite evident. The aggravating calculation and persistence. 10 In People v. Mendova, 11 it was emphasized that it should not
circumstances, however, were not proved. Moreover, the lower court did not take into be "premeditation" merely; it is "evident" premeditation. 12 A recent decision, People v.
Anin, 13 ruled that the perpetration of a criminal act "evidently made in the heat of anger" did
consideration the existence of the mitigating circumstance of the immediate vindication of
not call for a finding that there was evident premeditation. 14 What is required is that the
a grave offense. Hence, the imposition of the death penalty was not warranted.
offense was "the result of cool and serene reflection." 15 What was done by the brothers of
Capala, cannot be categorized as falling within the norm of means being employed or was incurred by him. In the light of the foregoing, and following the case of People v.
circumstances being brought about to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. It is well Rosel 20 where the murder was qualified by the circumstance of treachery and there was
to stress that they were prompted by their desire to avenge their brother, They went after likewise considered the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense,
Magaso, the victim. They assaulted him, relying on the weapons they carried with them. the penalty imposed on the accused should be "ten years and one day of prision mayor to
Jesus stabbed him and appellant Mario pistol-whipped him. They did what they felt they had seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal." 21
to do to redress a grievance. It cannot be said, therefore, that they deliberately employed
means to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. It is quite apparent that all they were WHEREFORE, the accused is found guilty of murder, but the decision of the lower court
interested in was to assure that there be retribution for what was done to their brother. The is hereby modified. The accused is sentenced to ten years and one day of prision
mere fact that appellant Mario Capalac is a member of the police force certainly did not of mayor minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion
itself justify that the aggravating circumstance of advantage being taken by the offender of his temporal maximum. In all other respects, the lower court decision stands affirmed.
public position be considered as present. He acted like a brother, instinctively reacting to
what was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his kin that could cause the death of a loved one.
It would be an affront to reason to state that at a time like that and reacting as he did, he
purposely relied on his being a policeman to commit the act. He pistol-whipped the deceased
because he had his pistol with him. It came in handy and he acted accordingly. 16 That he
was a policeman is of no relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility.

4. There is another aspect of the decision that calls for correction. The mitigating
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense was not considered. There is
no ambiguity in the language of the Revised Penal Code: "That the act was committed in
the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree. 17 What was done was an immediate
vindication of the stabbing perpetrated by Magaso on appellant's brother Moises. For
relatively less serious crimes than this, this Court has taken into consideration this mitigating
circumstance. 18 Certainly it seems probable that the reason why, the lower court failed to do
so was the fact that appellant was a member of the police force. That is not conclusive. What
is decisive is the fact that the brothers Capalac, responsive to what is a traditional norm of
conduct, reacted in a manner which for them was necessary under the circumstances. That
was a fulfillment of what family honor and affection require. The aggressor who did them
wrong should not go unpunished. This is not to justify what was done. It offers though an
explanation. At the same time, the rule of law, which frowns on an individual taking matters
into his own hands, requires that every circumstance in favor of an accused should not be
ignored. That is to render justice according to law. This mitigating circumstance calls for
application.

5. There is no point in discussing the fourth assigned error, namely, that the ante mortem
statement of the victim should have been given weight by the Court. Such exhibit, 19 even
if considered a dying declaration, would not call for a reversal. It consisted of seven questions
and answers. The answers to the second and the third questions referred to what happened
to Magaso and who was responsible. His answer was that he was stabbed, and that it was
done by Jesus Capalac. The other questions dealt with when and where it happened as well
as whether or not he was in possession of his senses, and a rather unnecessary question as
to whether he was aggrieved. This Court, as was the lower court, is aware that the stabbing
<äre||anº• 1àw>

was by Jesus Capalac, not by appellant. It does not thereby mean that no criminal liability
G.R. No. L-40330 November 20, 1978 PREMISES CONSIDERED, We find that the guilt of the accused Amado
Daniel has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and he should
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, accordingly suffer the penalty for the crime herein charged.
vs.
AMADO DANIEL alias "AMADO ATO", accused-appellant. We find, however, that the sentence imposed the accused in the
judgment appealed from is not in accordance with law.
Eraulio D. Yaranon for appellant.
Republic Act No. 4111, which took effect on June 20, 1964, amended
Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, providing that —
Solicitor Rosalio A. de Leon for appellee.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.

MUÑOZ PALMA, J: Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of
a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
This case originated from the Court of First Instance of Baguio City by virtue of a shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
complaint filed by 13-year old Margarita Paleng accusing Amado Daniel alias "Amado
Ato" of rape alleged to have been committed as follows: Under Section 17 of Chapter 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic
Act No. 296, as amended) —
That on or about the 20th day of September, 1965, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise,
accused, armed with a sharp instrument and by means of force and reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, as the law or rules of court may
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts as herein
carnal knowledge of the undersignedcomplaint, against her will, and in provided, in —
her own room situated at No. 25 Interior, Pinsao, Guisad, Baguio City.
(1) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is
That in the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance that it death or life imprisonment; ...
was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, the latter not having
givenprovocation for it, is present. (p. 1, CFI record) WHEREFORE, We hereby certify this case to the Supreme Court for
appropriate further proceedings pursuant to law. 2
The trial court, presided then by Hon. Feliciano Belmonte, after due trial rendered its
decision on May 30, 1966, finding the accused guilty and sentencing him to suffer "not By virtue of the foregoing decision of the Court of Appeals the case was certified to this
more than TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal and not less Court and in a Resolution of March 6, 1975, the same was ordered docketed. 3
than SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, and to pay the costs." 1
Preliminary question —
His motion for reconsideration and new trial having been denied, accused filed a notice
of appeal; forthwith the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals. The certification of the case to Us poses a preliminary question which strikes at the very
root of a long standing practice and procedure evoked for the last forty years or so since
On September 23, 1974, the Court of Appeals through its Tenth Division rendered the creation of the Court of Appeals. 4
a decision the dispositive portion of which follows:
Is the Supreme Court with jurisdiction to act on an appeal in a criminal case where the
offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua or death certified to it by the Court of
Appeals with findings of facts and of the guilt of the accused, but without imposing the upon such question which concerns its own jurisdiction. And in order that
penalty of reclusion perpetua or death on the appellant pursuant to Rule 124, Section 12, this Court may exercise its power of review the Court of appeals is bound
paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court?5 to make in its order f certification such findings of facts as are necessary
to support its conclusion that either life imprisonment or death is the
Mr. Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, joined by other ,Justices, expresses the view that for penalty to be imposed. This is indeed covered by Rule 52, section 3,
this Court to acquire jurisdiction over the appeal, the decision before Us must have which provides th where a court to which an appeal has been taken has
imposed on the appellant the penalty either of reclusion perpetua or death as the facts no appellate jurisdiction over lic case and it certifies the same to the
warranted. proper court, it must do so "with a specific and clear statement of grounds
therefor." the requirement of with and specific grounds is precisely a
The rest of the Justices together with the writer of this Opinion, believe otherwise and device to prevent erroneous transmissions of jurisdiction from a lower to
hold the view that the dispositive portion of the decision as written and rendered is in a superior court.
accordance with the Constitution and the law, and vests jurisdiction on the Court to act
on the appeal. Furthermore, the words "shall refrain from entering judgment thereon"
appearing in the provision above quoted, are sufficient indication that the
A. In People v. Ramos, decided on November 28, 1947, 6 a case was certified to this Court of Appeals, at the time of certifying the case to this Court, had
Court by the Court of Appeals without findings of facts and simply on the ground that it already examined the evidence and was ready to render judgment on the
was "on the opinion that the penalty that should be imposed ill this case is reclusion merits, but having found from the facts established by proof that the
perpetua, as recommended by the Solicitor-General, and not reclusion temporal, as penalty to be imposed is either death or life imprisonment, instead of
imposed by tile lower court." The question arose as to the proper procedure to be entering judgment thereon , it certifies the case to the Supreme Court for
followed by the appellate court in certifying cases to this Court under Section 145-K of final determination. Since the Certification is the only ground for
the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Republic Act No. 52 which read: determining our jurisdiction, it must contain not only conclusions of law
but also findings of fact, the latter being more important than the former
for they supply the real basis for determining jurisdiction ...
Whenever in any criminal cases submitted to a division the said division
should be of the opinion that the penalty of death or life imprisonment
should be imposed, the said Court shall refrain from entering judgment The instant case cannot be compared with cases coming directly from a
thereon and shall forthwith certify the case to the Supreme Court for final Court of First Instance wherein either life imprisonment or death penalty
determination, as if the case had been brought before it on appeal. is imposed, for in such cases, if we assume jurisdiction even where the
judgment appears to be erroneous on its face, it is because the Court of
First Instance has already exhausted its jurisdiction by rendering
In disposing of the issue several matters came up which evoked different, and We may
judgment on the merits containing both findings of fact and conclusions of
say, strong reactions from the Justices then composing the Court, but for brevity we shall
law, and under such circumstance it is more practical for the
not dwell on them. Simply stated, it is was ruled that the Court of Appeals was duty
administration of the law that this Court should exercise its appellate
bound to make its findings of facts to support its opinion that the penalty to the imposed
jurisdiction by examining the evidence and correcting all errors both of
upon the appellant was either life imprisonment or death so as to bring the case within
fact and of law that might have been committed by the trial court. But
the jurisdiction of this Court.
here, the Court of Appeals is refraining from rendering judgment on the
merits and is refusing to complete the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
From the Resolution written for the Court by then Mr. Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran, We because it believes that such jurisdiction belongs to the Supreme Court
quoted the following pertinent portions: and thus, it proceeds to transfer the case to this Court. lt is in that transfer
that we believe we may intervene in order to prevent an erroneous
The jurisdiction of this Court predicated upon the opinion of the Court of transfer,
Appeals, as provided in the above-quoted provisions of the law, must of
necessity defend upon the correctness of that opi nion There is nothing in xxx xxx xxx
the law precluding this Court from exercising ing its authority to pass
 Section 145-K of the Administrative Code is merely a method designed to Justice Cesar Bengzon who later became Chief Justice of this Court and Justice Sabino
make effective the appellate jurisdiction of both the Court of Appeals and Padilla.8
this Court, as defined by law. According to the law of jurisdiction (section
138, Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Acts B. The theory is now advanced that We go one step further than that ruled in Ramos —
Nos. 3 and 259), offenses, for which the penalty imposed is death or life that is, for the Court of Appeals not only to make its findings of fact and finding of guilt,
imprisonment, including offenses arising from the same occurrence or but also to impose the penalty either of reclusion perpetua or death as the facts warrant
committed on the same occasion, come within the appellate jurisdiction in order that We may exercise Our appellate jurisdiction.
of the Supreme Court, and the remaining offenses fall within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals ... We believe that such a judicial ruling will be violence to the letter and spirit of the law
which confers on the Supreme Court the exclusive prerogative to review on appeal and
We are of the opinion and so hold, therefore, that in a case like this, the impose the corresponding penalty in criminal cases where the offense is punishable
Court of Appeals, in certifying it to this Court, must state its findings of by reclusion perpetua or death.
fact necessary to support its conclusion that the penalty to be imposed is
either life imprisonment or death. While this Court will not review the Both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions vest upon the Supreme Court appellate
findings of fact, it will pass upon the correctness of the legal conclusions jurisdiction, in "(A)ll criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life
derived therefrom. And if this Court finds the conclusions to be correct, it imprisonment."9 This jurisdiction is constitutional: the Supreme Court ma not be deprived
will assume jurisdiction. If it finds them to be wrong, the case will be thereof by, Congress then, now the National Assembly. 10
returned to the Court of Appeals. (pp. 613-616, supra, emphasis
supplied)
Section 17 of the Judiciary Act 1948 as amended in turn provides that the foregoing
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is exclusive.
In Ramos, the case was accepted because the Court considered that there was
substantial compliance with the law as the order of certification made reference to the
Basically therefore, the objection to this new theory is one of jurisdiction - the lack of
opinion and recommendation of the Solicitor General whose brief contained sufficient
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua or death.
findings of fact to warrant the conclusion that life imprisonment should be imposed upon
the appellant. Justices Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado and Briones concurred in the
Resolution. The present controversy springs from the construction given to the second paragraph of
Sec. 12, Rule 124, Rules of Court 11 more particularly to the use of the phrases "should
be imposed" and "shall refrain from entering judgment", viz:
Justice Gregorio Perfecto in a separate opinion concurred with the principle that the
Court of Appeals is bound to make its findings of fact and study the evidence so as to
determine whether the appellant is guilty or not, but dissented from that portion of the xxx xxx xxx
Resolution which accepted the case as he was of the opinion that the case should have
been remanded to the Court of Appeals.7 Whenever in any criminal case submitted to a division the said division
should be of the opinion that the penalty of death or life imprisonment
Justice Pedro Tuason wrote a separate opinion and dissented from the majority insofar should be imposed, the said court shall refrain from entering
as it held that it was necessary for the Court of Appeals or a division thereof to state the judgment thereon and shall forthwith certify the case to the Supreme
reasons for its opinion that death penalty or life imprisonment should be imposed. He Court for final determination, as if the case had been brought before it on
particularly dissented from statements that if this Court found the conclusions of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied)
Court of Appeals to be wrong, the case should be returned to the Court of Appeals for
further proceedings. According to Justice Tuason when a case is certified to this Court it As we construe it, the Rule cited does not charge the appellate court with
is placed, by force of the Court of Appeals' opinion, within the jurisdiction of the Supreme the duty of imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or death. All that
Court for the latter to decide the appeal on the merits; findings of fact of the Court of the Rule requires is that should the Court of Appeals be of the opinion
Appeals are neither essential nor necessary. Justice Tuason was joined in his dissent by that death or life imprisonment should be imposed, it "shall refrain from
entering judgment thereon ...
The clause "entering judgment" means "rendering judgment". Thus, the Court of Appeals The offended party in this case is Margarita Paleng who was born on
shall refrain from rendering judgment if and when it is of the opinion that reclusion November 20, 1952 (p. 3, t.s.n., Manipon). She is a native of
perpetua or death is the proper penalty for the crime committed. This can be the only Balangabang Tublay, Mountain Province (pp. 3, 12, Id.) At the time of the
logical interpretation considering that the Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to incident in question on September 20, 1965, complainant was temporarily
impose the penalties concerned. The phrase "entering judgment" is not to be equated boarding at a house located at Pinsao Guisad Baguio City, as she was
with an "entry of judgment" as the latter is understood in Rule 36 in relation to Section 8, then a first year high school student at the Baguio Eastern High School
Rule 121 and Section 16, Rule 124, Rules of Court. "Entry of judgment" presupposes a (pp. 3, 12, 20, Id.; p. 36, Estigoy).
final judgment — final in the sense that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial
or appellate court within the reglementary period. A judgment in a criminal case becomes On September 20, 1965, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, she had
final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has just arrived in the City from Tublay in a Dangwa bus (p. 3, Manipon).
been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has expressly waived in Because it was then raining and the bus was parked several meters
writing his right to appeal.12 It is only then that there is a judgment which is to be entered away from the bus station, she waited inside the bus (pp. 3, 22, Id.). After
or recorded in the book of entries of judgments. 13 about three minutes of waiting, the accused came and started molesting
her by inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag (pp. 4, 22-24, Id.).
It would be incongruous or absurd to state that Section 12, second paragraph, Rule 124 But she did not allow him to hold her bag (p. 24, Id.). She called the
enjoins the Court of Appeals from entering judgment" when there is no judgment to be attention of the bus driver and the conductor about the actuation of the
entered . accused, but it seemed that the former were also afraid of him (pp. 24-
25, Id.).
But then the argument is advanced — what is there to be reviewed by the Supreme
Court when the decision being certified contains no penalty or sentence, as distinguished Despite the rain, she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some
from appeals from the Court of First Instance where there is a complete judgment to be 100 meters away (pp. 4, 25, Id.). The accused closely followed her (p.
passed upon. The answer is simple. Section 12 itself states that the case is for final 4, Id.). When the jeep started to go, the accused also rode and sat beside
determination by the Supreme Court as if the case had been brought before it on appeal. her (p. 5, Id.).
Hence, based on the findings of facts of the appellate court which as a rule are
conclusive and binding on Us, this Court "will pass upon the correctness of the legal When the jeep reached Guisad, she alighted on the road but she still had
conclusions derived therefrom" (People v. Ramos, supra) and impose the correct penalty to negotiate a distance of ten meters (p. 5, Id.). The accused also
for the offense committed. alighted and again he tried to carry her bag (p. 5, Id.). Although he was
not allowed to carry her bag, her was adamant in following her (p. 5, Id.).
We realize that had Section 12, Rule 124 used the phrase shall refrain
from rendering judgment " there would be no cause for any ambiguity. We can only Reaching her boarding house, she opened the door and was about to
assume that the intent of the Rule was so clear to the Court when it drafted the Revised close it when the accused dashed in and closed the door behind him (pp.
Rules of Court that it did not envision a possible contrary or adverse interpretation or 31-32, Id.). When she entered her room, the accused went in (p. 7, Id.).
ambiguity in its implementation under the phraseology used. It is incumbent upon Us to He pulled a dagger eight inches long and threatened her: "If you will talk,
construe the Rule in the spirit and intent it was conceived and in harmony with pertinent 1 will kill you". (p. 7, Id.). Margarita was stunned into silence because of
laws and jurisprudence. her fear (p. i Id.). Thereupon, the accused held her hair with his left hand
and forced her Lo lie down in bed (p. 7, Id.) He also placed his left hand
On the merits of the appeal — with a handkerchief in Margarita's mouth, at the same time holding the
dagger and her neck with his right hand (pp. 7-8, Id.). She was forcibly
1. Generally in a case of this nature, the evidence of the prosecution consists solely of made to the down and, at this moment, the accused removed the buttons
the testimony of the offended party. Here We have the declaration of the victim, who at of his pants (p. 8, Id.). He then put down the dagger on tile bed (p. 8, Id.).
the time of the incident was a little less than 13 years of age, on the basis of which the Her attempts to extricate herself from the accused was to no avail assile
trial court found the charge of rape duly established. The happenings are briefly was only 4 ft. and 8 inches tall and weighed about 95 to 100 pounds (p.
summarized in the People's brief as follows: 35, Id.) while the accused was 5 ft. and 7 inches tall and weighed about
 126 pounds (pp. 8, 59, Id.). He then held his penis (pp. 8. 36, Id.), used For his defense, appellant claimed that he and Margarita were acquainted with each
his thigh to separate the legs of Margarita (p. 38, Id.). tried, but failed. to other since 1963, and there were occasions when they rode together in a bus; that the
remove her panty (p. 36, Id.). He nonetheless guided his penis and incident of September 20, 1965 inside the room of Margarita was with the latter's
inserted it inside the vagina of the complainant after prying open the part consent, and in fact it was the second time he had carnal knowledge with her, the first
of her panty covering her private parts (pp. 9, 36, Id.). Then he time having occurred inside a shack; that he promised Margarita that he would marry
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the offended party (p. 9, Id.). her, but to his surprise, she filed the instant complaint against him. 15
Margarita lost consciousness. When she recovered, he was already gone
(p. 9, Id.). 2. The issue being one of credibility, We find no cogent reasons for discarding the
findings of facts of the trial court which were sustained by the Court of Appeals after the
The following morning, her father came to visit her. She confided to him latter had examined the evidence as a result of which it certified the case to this Court.
the terrible misfortune which befell her (pp. 9-10, Id.). She was
immediately brought to the Baguio General Hospital where she was Appellant assails the veracity of the testimony of the complainant. But what possible
examined (p. 10, Id.). Then they proceeded to the Police Department. motive could a thirteen-year old girl barely in her teens have in fabricating a story that
The Chief of Police accompanied them to the Health Center where she could only bring down on her and her family shame and humiliation and make her an
was again examined by Dr. Perfecto O. Micu who thereafter submitted object of gossip and curiosity among her classmates and the people of her hometown. It
his medical report (Exh. C; p. 3, rec.; pp. 11, 14-16, Id.). Margarita and cannot be denied that a public trial involving a crime of this nature subjects the victim to
her father gave their respective statements before the police authorities what can be a harrowing experience of submitting to a physical examination of her body,
(Exh. B, pp, 5-6, rec.; p. 11, t.s.n.). She signed her criminal complaint an investigation by police authorities, appearance in court for the hearing where she has
prepared by the Fiscal's Office of Baguio (Exh. A; p. 1, rec.; p. 11, t.s.n. to unravel lewd and hideous details of a painful event which she would prefer to forget
(pp. 2-4, Brief at p. 83, rollo and leave it unknown to others. If Margarita did forego all these and preferred to face the
cruel realities of the situation it was due to her simple and natural instincts of speaking
The City Medico-Legal Officer, Dr. Perfecto Micu was called to the witness stand and he out the truth.
testified on the physical examination conducted on the person of Margarita Paleng on
September 23, 1965 and his findings as contained in the report were as follows: The insinuation that this complaint was filed because appellant had not married the girl
although he promised to marry her, is preposterous. On September 20, 1965, Margarita
1. Hymen-circular-stellate type with healing lacerations at 6:00, 8:00, 9:00 was only twelve years and ten months old and was not of marriageable age, hence,
and 11:00 o'clock positions in the face of a clock. marriage was a legal impossibility. And as regards appellant's testimony that the
complaint was instigated by the Chief of Police of Tublay who was Margarita's uncle, the
2. Contusions at the base of the hymen at 3:00 & 9:00 o'clock regions. trial court did not give credit to such a declaration.

3. Vaginal Orifice - tight and hardly admits 2 fingers. Counsel for appellant stresses that notwithstanding that Margarita had the opportunity to
ask for help or attract the attention of other people before she reached her boarding
4. Vaginal wall — tight and vaginal folds are prominent. house, she failed to do so. According to counsel there were people at the Dangwa
station, in the busy streets, in the market place, in the jeepney parking place where the
girl took a jeep to proceed to the boarding house, and in the neighboring houses the
5. Vaginal smear — negative for spermatozoa and for gram negative
closest of which was about 5 meters away, but no attempt was ever made by
intra or extra-cellular diplococci. (Exh. "C", p. 3, CFI record)
complainant to seek help so as to prevent appellant from molesting her. 16
Dr. Micu concluded that "defloration was recent". He further declared that the condition of
Appellant's contention presupposes that Margarita was well aware all the time from the
the hymen revealed that Margarita Paleng was a virgin before the incident complained
moment she saw the appellate inside the bus that the latter had intentions of abusing or
of, and that the number of lacerations and contusions at the base of the hymen indicated
raping her. All that the appellant did inside the bus was to hold her bag and she caged
the degree of force exerted to effect the sexual act. 14
the attention of the driver and the conductor to the impertinence of appellant but the two
did not do anything about it. 17 And when Margarita walked from the bus to the jeepney
station, although she saw appellant walking behind her she did not suspect that he was crime of rape and one of the latest is People v. Equec, 1977, per Justice
following her. To a question propounded by His Honor whether she suspected that Enrique Fernando, 70 SCRA 665.)
appellant was following her, Margarita answered: "No sir, I did not suspect." 18 All along
Margarita could not call the attention of the people in the street or shout for help And as stated in People v. Savellano, per Justice Ramon Aquino, the force or violence
inasmuch as at that particular moment the appellant was not doing anything against her. necessary in rape is naturally a relative term, depending on the age, size, and strength of
And when Margarita reached the boarding house there were no persons around 19 and in the parties and their relation to each other. 23
fact she went straight to her room and it was at that particular moment when appellant
barged into the room before she could close the door. In short, the Poor girl was simply Rape is likewise committed when intimidation is used on the victim and the latter submits
taken by surprise by the forced entrance of appellant who immediately took out an 8-inch herself against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety. In this case of
long dagger and said "If you will talk I will kill you." Margarita Paleng, appellant was armed with a dagger and with it threatened to kill the girl
if she would talk or scream for help. Her fear naturally weakened whatever resistance
Persons can have different reactions to a situation like that — some may manifest an Margarita could muster at the time and as a result appellant was able to consummate his
aggressive or violent attitude of confronting a molesting or impertinent fellow while coitus on the victim. 24
others, like 12-year old Margarita, may assume a silent. fearful attitude.
One last point raised by the able counsel of appellant, Atty. Braulio D. Yaranon, who at
Appellant's counsel also claims that Margarita did not offer any resistance to the acts of the time of the trial in 1965 was the Vice-Mayor of Baguio City, was that appellant
the accused at the time the latter was allegedly forcing himself on her as shown by the voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test with the National Bureau of Investigation and
medical findings that there were no signs of extra-genital injuries on the girl's body, and the report of the lie detector examiner is in appellant's favor, that is, the latter was telling
no blood stains on her dress and underwear. the truth on the questions propounded to him one of which was whether he forced
Margarita Paleng into having sexual intercourse with him and the reply was "No". 25
The foregoing arguments are inadequate to weaken and destroy the veracity of
Margarita's straightforward and positive declaration as to how appellant, a 22-year old On this matter We find the trial Judge's observations and conclusions meritorious and
farmer in the prime of his manhood, weighing 126 lbs and five feet 21 and six inches We quote from his decision the following:
tall,20 overpowered her and succeeded in accomplishing the sexual act despite her
resistance. Margarita was less than 13 years of age, was 4' 8 " in height, and weighed As to the N.B.I. lie detector test report, the Court does not put much faith
around 95 lbs.21 and credit on it. It is well known that the same is not conclusive. Its
efficacy depends upon the time, place and circumstances when taken
In a crime of rape, force need not be irresistible; "it need but be present, and so long as it and the nature of the subject. If subject is hard and the circumstances, as
brings about the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less in this instant, were not conducive to affect the subject emotionally, the
irresistible, is beside the point. 22 test will fail. The subject had nothing more to fear because the trial was
over. He was not confronted by the victim or other persons whom he had
All that is necessary is that the force used by the accused is sufficient for him to a reason to fear. Naturally, his reaction to the questions propounded was
consummate his evil purpose. In U.S. v. Villarosa, 1905, there was a similar situation. A normal and unaffected and the apparatus could not detect it. (pp. 172-
12 year old girl was sexually abused in the woods by a man of superior physical strength. 173, CFI record)
In holding the accused Villarosa guilty of rape the Court held:
To conclude, the crime committed by the appellant is rape with the use of a deadly
It is a doctrine well established by the courts that in order to consider the weapon with the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in the dwelling of
existence of the crime of rape it is not necessary that the force employed the offended party. Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding
in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a "dwelling" as the term is used
resisted; it is only necessary that the force used by the guilty party be in Article 14(3), Revised Penal Code. It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim
sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in view. (4 Phil. 434, owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-spacer, the
437 citing Judgment May 14, 1878, Supreme Court of Spain. The place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold.
Villarosa doctrine has been followed in numerous cases involving the
Hence, the correct penalty for the crime committed is death pursuant to Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended. However, for lack of the necessary number of votes,
the penalty next lower in degree is to be applied.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, We affirm the judgment of conviction of Amado Daniel for

the crime of rape as charged, and We sentence him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and order him to indemnify Margarita Paleng by way of moral damages in the
amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) and pay the costs.

Decision Modified.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 133872 May 5, 2000 TOTAL P16,000.00

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, with the total amount of P16,000.00 belonging to one ANA MARINAY Y
vs. SICYAN; that in the course of said robbery, said accused, with the use of
ALEXANDER TAÑO y CABALLERO, accused-appellant. force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse with said AMY DE
PANGANIBAN,J.: GUZMAN Y MAQUINANA, against the latter's will and without her
consent and with the use of a bladed weapon.
The appellant cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape
because the asportation was conceived and carried out as an afterthought and only after During his arraignment on November 26, 1997, appellant, assisted by his counsel de
the rape has been consummated. Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating oficio, pleaded not guilty to the charge. 3 After trial on the merits, the lower court
circumstance in this case because the rape was committed in the ground floor of a two- promulgated the herein assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as
story structure, the lower floor being used as a video rental store and not as a private follows:
place of abode or residence.
W H E R E F O R E the prosecution having established beyond an iota of
The Case doubt the guilt of Accused ALEXANDER TAÑO Y CABALLERO of the
crime of Robbery with Rape, and considering the presence of the
This is an automatic review of the Decision 1 dated April 23, 1998 of the Regional Trial aggravating circumstance of dwelling without any mitigating
Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. C-53066, finding Accused- circumstances to offset the same, this Court hereby sentences the
Appellant Alexander Taño y Caballero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with Accused to suffer the maximum penalty of D E A T H with all the
rape and imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death. The case arose out of an accessory penalties provided by law; to indemnify Victim AMY DE
Information, 2 dated November 10, 1997, signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Salvador C. GUZMAN the amount of P50,000.00 and pay her actual damages of
Quimpo, accusing the appellant of robbery with rape allegedly committed as follows: P2,687.65 and to restore to the victim her gold ring of undetermined
amount as well as moral and exemplary damages in the total sum of
P100,000.00; and to pay the costs.
That on or about the 6th day of November, 1997 in Kalookan City, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to gain and by means fo force and The Facts
intimidation employed upon the person of one AMY DE GUZMAN Y
MAQUINANA, did there and then wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, Version of the Prosecution
rob and carry away the following articles, to wit:
The solicitor general sums the evidence for the prosecution in this wise:4
Cash money P5,000.00
On November 6, 1997, at around 7:30 p.m., Amy de Guzman (Amy) was
Three (3) bracelets 3,500.00 tending a Video Rental Shop owned by her employer and cousin, Ana
Marinay (Ana) located at 153 Loreto Street, Morning Breeze
Two (2) rings 5,000.00 [S]ubdivision, Caloocan City (Tsn., January 8, 1998, p. 3). Thereupon,
accused-appellant Alexander Taño, a relative of Ana's husband Gerry
Marinay (Gerry), arrived at said shop (ibid., p. 4). Alexander Taño then
One (1) pair of earrings 2,000.00
asked Amy about the time when Gerry would be coming home, to which
she replied, 10:00 p.m. (id.). He then asked about the time when Ana
One (1) Alba wristwatch 1,500.00 would be coming home and Amy replied that she did not know (id.).

—————
Thereafter, but still on the same date, Alexander Taño kept on going in At about 9:00 o'clock p.m. of the same day, Amy's employer Ana arrived
and out of the Video Shop, and on the last time that he went inside said and found the shop in disarray with the "karaoke" in full volume (Tsn., 13,
shop, he jumped over the counter of the shop to where Amy was and 1998, pp. 2-4). After turning off the "karaoke["], Ana proceeded to the
seized the latter by placing one of his arms around Amy['s] neck, while toilet where she found Amy bathed in blood (ibid., p. 4).
his other hand held a knife which he poked at her neck (id., pp. 4-5).
Ana immediately sought the help of Barangay officials of the place and
Terrified by the attack, Amy started shouting for help but Alexander Taño Amy was brought to the "MCU" Hospital where she was initially treated of
increased the volume of a karaoke which was on at the time to drown her injuries (id., p. 5). Amy was, later on, transferred to Jose P. Reyes
Amy's cries for help (id., p. 5). Memorial Medical Center (JPRMMC) where she was confined for four (4)
days.
Alexander Taño then dragged Amy to the kitchen of the shop where, at
knife point, he ordered the latter to undress and he thereafter started Version of the Defense
raping her (id., pp. 5-6).
On the other hand, appellant's version of the incident is as follows: 5
However, while Alexander Taño was raping Amy, somebody knocked at
the door of the shop prompting the former to stop what he was doing and . . . [O]n November 6, 1997, at around 7:40 p.m., he went to the house of
ordered Amy to put on her clothes (id., pp. 6-7). his cousin Gerry Bautista Marinay at 113 Loreto St., Morning Breeze
Subdivision, Kalookan City and upon arrival thereat he found therein Amy
Alexander Taño then directed Amy to go upstairs to the second floor of de Guzman alone which she greeted him because she knew that the
the shop to change clothes as he will be taking her with him (id., p. 7). accused was a frequent visitor thereof. Upon learning from her that Gerry
But suddenly thereafter, Taño pulled her down and punched her in the was not around, accused proceeded to the kitchen to drink water and
stomach thrice causing her to lose her balance (id.). Taño then started after he bought cigarettes at the nearby store, he returned to the shop
cursing her and again placed himself on top of her while poking a knife at and seated himself infront of Amy de Guzman's counter. After the lapse
her neck (id.). Amy then pleaded with Taño to just take anything inside of five minutes he got bored and went out again to wait for the arrival of
the shop and to spare her life, to which Taño replied "no, I will not leave GERRY. After finishing his cigarette he returned to Amy and talked with
you here alive." (id.). her and learned that ANA was at her newly opened restaurant. After a
while, the thought of stealing his cousin's valuables struck his mind owing
But after a while and upon Amy's pleading, Taño put down his knife and to his dire need of cash/money. Thus, he approached Amy and held her
while he was kissing Amy, the latter got hold of the knife which she hands and asked her to come with him because he badly needed money,
surreptitiously concealed under the stairs (id.). to lead him to where his cousin was keeping his money and valuables.
As to Amy's surprise [sic], she shouted and to stop her, the accused
Therafter, Taño became violent again and banged Amy's head on the covered her mouth with his right hand but Amy put up a struggle and in
wall causing the latter to lose consciousness (id., p. 9). When she the process they both fell down and rolled on the floor. Thence, the
regained consciousness she found herself and Taño inside the toilet of accused was able to subdue Amy and forcibly took her in the upstairs
the shop and the latter again banged her head, this time on the toilet where he did the ransacking of the drawers while holding the private
bowl, several times causing Amy to again lose consciousness (id., pp. 8- complainant's hand. However, she was able to free herself from his hold
10). and ran downstairs to the kitchen where she tried to get hold [of] a knife
but he was able to wrest with her. As the accused was rattled, he pushed
Amy inside the comfort room and shoved her head against the tiles to
Thereafter, Taño went upstairs and looted the place of valuables
mum her. He took Amy's bag wherein he placed his loot consisting of 2
belonging to Amy's employer, Ana. Amy, herself lost her ring, bracelet
wrist watches, including Amy's Alba watch, a bracelet, clothes and hair
and wristwatch during the incident in question (id., p. 10).
blower as well as jewelry box containing five rings which he placed in his
pocket, then he proceeded to his brother's house in Taytay. Upon arrival
 of the police and his cousin thereat he returned the jewelry box to the Penal Code as amended by RA 7659, it imposed the maximum penalty provided under
latter but the same was not presented in court, that no other jewelry was Article 294 of the same Code as amended, which is death.
taken by him from the place except those already specified, muchless
has he taken any cash money from his cousin Gerry Marinay, that he has Thus, this automatic review by this Court. 8
a wife staying in Iloilo and he has a girlfriend here in Manila, that he
never raped the private complainant Amy de Guzman and neither [had Issues
he] courted her prior to the incident. (TSN., March 3, 1998, pp. 2-9)
(TSN., March 4, 1998, pp. 2-6)"
In his Brief, 9 Appellant Taño assigns only two errors or issues. These are:
Ruling of the Trial Court
I
Assessing the testimony of the private complainant, the trial judge observed: 6
The lower court erred in not taking into consideration the testimonies of
Dr. Godofredo Balderosa and Dr. Maria Redencion Bukid-Abella which
Verily this Court finds the forthright account of the incident by the private negate the rape [charge] imputed against the accused.
complainant whose small and slender physique was certainly no match to
the tall well-built body of an ex-convict, to be candid, straightforward,
II
spontaneous and frank which remained consistent and unwavering
despite the rigid cross-examinations of the defense counsel wherein she
narrated in detail the sexual assault with the use of a knife perpetrated by The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
the accused against her. doubt of the crime of robbery with rape despite the prosecution's
insufficiency of evidence.
Parenthetically this Court has observed the deportment of the private
complainant at the witness stand and certainly she did not appear to In criminal cases, an appeal throws the whole case open for review and the appellate
have the callousness and shrewdness of a woman capable of imputing a court may correct such errors it may find in the appealed judgment, even if they have not
heinous crime against the [a]ccused if the same is not true. Besides, the been specifically assigned. 10 Hence, this Court likewise reviewed (a) the propriety of
defense has not shown any evil motive or ill will on the part of the private appellant's conviction of the special complex crime of robbery with rape and (b) the trial
complainant for testifying the way she did in this case. court's appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. These two items will be
discussed as the third and fourth issues.
The lower court accepted the judicial admission of the accused that he stole valuables
belonging to private complainant and her employer, and then proceeded to determine The Court's Ruling
"whether or not the prosecution evidence has sufficiently established the rape angle of
the case." After a careful review of the evidence on record, the Court finds that (a) appellant is guilty
of two separate crimes — rape and robbery, (b) dwelling cannot be appreciated as an
In fine, the [a]ccused having already admitted the robbery charge aggravating circumstance, and (c) the proper penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua, not
coupled with the fact that the prosecution has established with clear and death.
convincing evidence [a]ccused's culpability for sexually assaulting the
pri[v]ate complainant leaves no room for doubt of the guilt of the accused First Issue:
for the complex crime of robbery with (aggravated) rape[.]
Evaluation of the Examining
Furthermore, the trial court appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance
because the incident took place supposedly at the residence of private complainant's Doctors' Testimonies
employer, "which doubles as a video rental shop." 7 Applying Article 63 of the Revised
Appellant contends that the trial court failed to give due credence to the testimonies of In the case at bar, we find no reason to deviate from these doctrines. Amy de Guzman's
Dr. Godofredo Balderosa and Dr. Ma. Redencion Bukid-Abella, who both examined and straightforward and convincing testimony, which will be detailed later, bears no badge of
treated Amy de Guzman's physical injuries immediately after the incident. Both doctors material inconsistency which would bring doubt to its veracity. She stood firm on her tale
similarly stated that the victim complained to them of physical assault and attempted throughout her court appearance. The trial judge observed her "to be candid,
rape only, not of consummated rape. 11 Additionally, the findings of NBI Medico-Legal straightforward, spontaneous and frank . . . [and she] remained consistent and
Officer Aurea Villena were allegedly inconclusive as to whether there was sexual unwavering despite the rigid cross-examinations of the defense counsel . . ." 22
intercourse between the appellant and the victim. 12 Their testimonies supposedly bolster
appellant's innocence of the rape charge. Besides, no ill motive was imputed on her. Appellant offers us no plausible explanation
why Amy de Guzman cried rape against him. We believe she did so in order to bring out
Otherwise stated, appellant claims that the failure of Amy de Guzman to immediately the truth and to obtain justice.
disclose the rape to her examining physicians could only mean that she was not in fact
sexually assaulted. Appellant's contention that the absence of genital and other injuries on Amy's body
proves his innocence is unacceptable. Time and again, we have ruled that hymenal
In many criminal cases, especially of rape, this Court has acknowledged that the laceration is not an element of rape. 2 The victim need not sustain genital injuries, for
vacillation of the victim in reporting the crime to the authorities is not necessarily an even the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ is equivalent to
indication of a fabricated charge. Neither does it always cast doubt on the credibility on consummated rape. 24
the complaining witness. 1 The initial reluctance of a young, inexperienced lass to admit
having been ravished is normal and natural.14 The Court takes judicial notice of the Besides, the examining physician satisfactorily explained the absence of lacerations on
Filipina's inbred modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which private complainant's genitalia: 25
blemish her honor and virtue. 15 She cannot be expected to readily reveal the fact of her
sexual violation to total strangers. . . . during the examination I found out that [the victim's] hymen is that of
elastic type and so it is disten[s]ible and it could accommodate the penis
It is thus perfectly understandable and consistent with common experience that Amy without producing any genital injuries.
initially tried to downplay the assault upon her chastity by telling the doctors that there
was no consummation of the act. The following day, however, she was finally able to She elucidated that "[l]aceration only occur[s] on non-elastic hymen because non-elastic
gather the courage to reveal the entire truth to her cousin-employer, Ana Marinay. 16 She hymen cannot accommodate the size of the penis without producing injury but hers is
also executed a Sworn Statement 17 before PO3 Jaime Basa, detailing how she had been that of the elastic type, like rubber band that could stretch and turn back into its proper
raped and beaten by appellant. Four days later, she acceded to undergo a medico legal size." 26
examination of her genital organ, which was conducted by Dra. Aurea Villena of the Jose
R. Reyes Memorial Hospital, where she was confined.
Second Issue:
Time-honored is the doctrine that no young and decent woman would publicly admit that
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
she was ravished and her virtue defiled, unless such was true, for it would be instinctive
for her to protect her honor. 18 No woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts and submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via Time-tested is the guiding principle that when a victim cries rape, she says in effect all
an open trial, if her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the that is necessary to show that the crime was inflicted on her; and so long as her
culprit apprehended and punished. 19 Thus, absent any credible imputation of ill motive on testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis
the part of the private complainant to falsely accuse the appellant of a heinous crime, her thereof. 27 We have no reason in the instant case to deviate from this settled
candid and consistent testimony should be given full faith and credit. 20 It is a basic rule, jurisprudence.
founded on reason and experience, that when a victim testifies that she has been raped,
she effectively says all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. 21 Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
instances: (1) force or intimidation is used, (2) the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (3) she is under twelve years of age. 28 We find the necessary
elements of rape duly established by Private Complainant Amy de Guzman when she q You said you removed . . . your pants, where [sic] you
candidly testified thus: 29 wearing your panty at that time?

a Then Alexander Taño kept coming in and out of the a Yes, Sir. I was wearing one.
video rental shop and last time he went in, he slammed
the door and jumped over the counter where I was and q What happened to that panty?
strangled me while his other hand is holding a knife, the
knife was poked at the right side of my neck. a He told me to take off my pants, in doing so I took off
completely together with my panty.
q What else transpired thereafter?
q Then, what happened next?
a And he took the knife from the right hand and held it
with his left hand and turned the volume of the karaoke a And once [I laid] down on the floor, he tried . . . to make
louder so that my voice will not be heard since I was me spread[-]eagle my legs and in that process he knelt
shouting. between my legs then took off his pants.

q When the accused poked the knife, what did you feel? q And after that, what happen[ed] next after accused
removed his pants . . .?
a "Natakot po."
a Then after taking off his pants, he lay atop me and I felt
q What happen[ed] next Ms. Witness? he was forcing his penis in and [while] in that process the
knife was still poked at my left neck.
a Then after turning louder the volume of the karaoke to
down my voice, he took me to the kitchen. q When he inserted his penis into your private parts, what
did you feel?
COURT:
a Pain. (Masakit po).
q How [were] you taken to the kitchen?
q After inserting his penis into your private parts, what did
"Paano ka dinala sa kusina?" he do?

a Sakal-sakal po niya ako. a He kept on pumping.

xxx xxx xxx As noted earlier, the trial judge, who was able to observe firsthand the conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, perceived Amy to be candid, straightforward,
a . . . and once in the kitchen he made me lay my back spontaneous and frank. Said witness was also found to have been consistent and
against the stairs and told me to take[ ]off my pants. Due unwavering despite the rigid cross-examination of the defense counsel. We note from the
to fright I did as told and the knife was then poked at my transcript of stenographic notes that the judge herself had posed additional clarificatory
stomach. questions upon Amy. 30 Throughout her testimony, she indeed remained consistent as
well as convincing.
Of long-standing is the rule that findings of trial courts, especially on the credibility of [A]tty. [C]risostomo
witnesses, are entitled to great weight and accorded the highest respect by the reviewing
courts, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked or misappreciated [O]bjection he did not mention other jewelries. He
such as would alter the conviction of the appellant. 31 Trial judges are in a better position specified one bracelet and one wrist watch.
to assess the behavior of witnesses and to detect whether they are telling the truth or not
because they could directly observe them in court. 32 The reviewing magistrate, on the Court
other hand, has only the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings to rely upon.
[W]itness may answer.
With respect to the robbery, its elements are: (1) the subject is personal property
belonging to another; (2) there is unlawful taking of that property, (3) the taking is with
Witness
the intent to gain, and (4) there is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of
force upon things. 3 There is no question on the unlawful taking of valuables belonging to
Amy and her employer, Ana Marinay. Appellant openly admitted in court the unlawful a [T]here were sir.
asportation, thus:
Fiscal
q [W]ere you able to get some valuables from the room of
[the] Bautista 34 couple? q [W]hat are they?

a [Y]es sir. Witness

q [W]hat are these valuables? a [C]lothes and a hair blower because I was in a hurry. 36

a I remember the jewelry box containing jewelry, clothes During his arrest, the following stolen valuables were found in his bag: P5,000 cash, two
and other valuables [sic] things sir.35 bracelets, two rings and a pair of earrings, which Ana Marinay identified as belonging to
her; and one wristwatch and a bracelet belonging to Amy de Guzman. 37 Unrebutted is the
xxx xxx xxx presumption that a person in possession of stolen personal effects is considered the
author of the crime.
q [W]here did you get that jewelry box containing rings?
Third Issue:
a [I]nside the locker or aparador sir.
Crime(s) Committed
q [A]fter having taken all these jewelries and clothes you
placed them all in a blue bag and left the place? We do not, however, agree with the trial court that appellant is guilty of the special
complex crime of robbery with rape. This felony contemplates a situation where the
original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging
a [T]he jewelry box was placed inside my pocket. I did not
to another; and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying
place in the blue bag sir.
crime. 38
q [Y]ou mentioned five rings, Alba wrist watch owned by
Such factual circumstance does not obtain here. As related by Private Complainant Amy
rape victim [A]my de [G]uzman, you also mentioned other
de Guzman, accused-appellant suddenly jumped over the counter, strangled her, poked
jewelries, what other jewelries aside from the jewelry that
a knife at the left side of her neck, pulled her towards the kitchen where he forced her to
you took in the house of the couple Gerry [and Ana]
undress, and gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent. Thereafter, he
Bautista?
ordered her to proceed upstairs to get some clothes, so he could bring her out, saying he Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the
was not leaving her alive. At this point, appellant conceived the idea of robbery because, offended party and the latter has not given any provocation. 41 It is considered an
before they could reach the upper floor, he suddenly pulled Amy down and started aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law
mauling her until she lost consciousness; then he freely ransacked the place. Leaving accords to human abode. 42 As one commentator puts it, one's dwelling place is a
Amy for dead after repeatedly banging her head, first on the wall, then on the toilet bowl, sanctuary worthy of respect; thus, one who slanders another in the latter's house is more
he took her bracelet, ring and wristwatch. He then proceeded upstairs where he took as severely punished than one who offends him elsewhere. 4 According to Cuello Calon, the
well the jewelry box containing other valuables belonging to his victim's employer. commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows worse perversity and produces
graver alarm. 44
Under these circumstances, appellant cannot be convicted of the special complex crime
of robbery with rape. However, since it was clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt that In the case at bar, the building where the two offenses were committed was not entirely
he raped Amy de Guzman and thereafter robbed her and Ana Marinay of valuables for dwelling purposes. The evidence shows that it consisted of two floors: the ground
totaling P16,000, he committed two separate offenses — rape with the use of a deadly floor, which was being operated as a video rental shop, and the upper floor, which was
weapon and simple robbery with force and intimidation against persons. used as a residence. It was in the video rental shop where the rape was committed.
True, the victim was dragged to the kitchen and toilet but these two sections were
Appellant may well be convicted of the separate offenses of rape and robbery adjacent to and formed parts of the store. Being a commercial shop that caters to the
notwithstanding the fact that the offense charged in the Information is only "Robbery with public, the video rental outlet was open to the public. As such, it is not attributed the
Rape." In a similar case, People v. Barrientos, 39 this Court held: sanctity of privacy that jurisprudence accords to residential abodes. Hence, dwelling
cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape.
. . . Controlling in an Information should not be the title of the complaint,
nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part Proper Penalties
thereof allegedly violated, these being, by and large, mere conclusions of
law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and Under Article 335, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, "[w]henever
the particular facts therein recited. Neither is it the technical name given the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon . . . the penalty shall
to the offense by the prosecutor, more than the allegations made by him, be reclusion perpetua to death." Under Article 63 of the same Code, reclusion
that should predominate in determining the true character of the crime. perpetua is the appropriate penalty imposable upon accused-appellant for the crime of
There should also be no problem in convicting an accused of two or more rape, inasmuch as no aggravating circumstance was proven. Pursuant to current
crimes erroneously charged in one information or complaint, but later jurisprudence, the award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon the
proven to be independent crimes, as if they were made the subject of finding of the fact of rape. 45 Moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in
separate complaints or informations. such amount as the Court deems just, without the need of pleading or proof of the basis
thereof. 46 In rape cases, it is recognized that the victim's moral injury is concomitant with
In the case at bar, we find the Information filed against appellant to have sufficiently and necessarily results from the odiousness of the crime to warrant the grant of moral
alleged all the elements necessary to convict him of the two separate crimes of rape and damages. 47 In the instant case, we deem it appropriate to grant Amy de Guzman
robbery. Needless to state, appellant failed, before his arraignment, to move for the P30,000 as moral damages. However, since no aggravating circumstance attended the
quashal of the Information which appeared to charge more than one offense. He has rape, no exemplary damages may be awarded. 48
thereby waived any objection and may thus be found guilty of as many offenses as those
charged in the Information and proven during the trial. 40 For the crime of robbery committed under the circumstances of this case, the Code
provides the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
Fourth Issue: medium period. 49 Further, the appellant is also entitled to the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the actual damages incurred by Amy de Guzman in
Dwelling as an connection with her physical injuries, the lower court awarded P2,687.65, based on
receipts submitted by her. A recomputation of the receipts, however, reveals a total of
only P2,487.65. We, therefore, reduce the award accordingly. The trial court also ordered
Aggravating Circumstance
appellant "to restore to the victim her gold ring of undetermined amount," which was
supposedly unrecovered. Upon an examination of the records, we note that the
Information alleges the robbery of the following items: P5,000 cash, three (3) bracelets,
two rings, one pair of earrings and one (1) Alba wristwatch. Except for the cash money,
which has already been returned to Ana Marinay by the police, the other items were
offered as evidence 50 and submitted to the custody of the trial court. Upon Motion 51 of
Ana Marinay and Amy de Guzman, the release to them of these items was ordered by
this Court via a Resolution issued on December 7, 1999. The stolen items are therefore
all accounted for. Thus, we find no sufficient basis for the trial court's order for the
appellant to return a "gold ring of undetermined amount."

In robbery and other common crimes, the grant of moral damages is not automatic,
unlike in rape cases. The rule that a claim for moral damages must be supported by
proof still stands. It must be anchored on proof showing that the claimant experienced
moral suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation or similar injury. 52 The private complainants,
however, did not present any evidence of their moral sufferings as a result of the
robbery. Thus, there is no basis for the grant of moral damages in connection with the
robbery.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED. Accused-Appellant

Alexander Taño y Caballero is found guilty of two separate offenses: rape and robbery.
For the crime of rape, appellant is hereby SENTENCED to reclusion perpetua and to pay
Private Complainant Amy de Guzman P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto and P30,000 as
moral damages. For the crime of robbery, appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight
(8) years of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay De Guzman P2,487.65 as actual
damages.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-51304-05 June 28, 1983 hitting the latter on the different parts of his body causing his
instantaneous death.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
MARTIN MANDOLADO and JULIAN ORTILLANO, defendants-appellants. premeditation, and the use of superior strength.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 562, the information reads:

Basilio V. Lanoria for defendants-appellants. That on or about October 3, 1977, in the afternoon, in the Municipality of
Sultan Kudarat, Province of Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and helping one another with
GUERRERO, J.: treachery, evident premeditation and the use of superior strength all
armed with high- powered weapons did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, and with the use of their guns shoot Mr.
The judgment of conviction rendered by the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Branch I
Herminigildo Fajardo Tenorio hitting the latter on the different parts of his
I, Cotabato City dated June 28, 1979 sentencing the accused Martin Mandolado to the
body causing his instantaneous death.
supreme penalty of death in each case and the accused Julian Ortillano to imprisonment
of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to seventeen (17) years of prision
mayor as maximum, being merely an accessory, is before Us for mandatory review. Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation, and the use of superior strength.
Under two (2) separate criminal informations dated January 5, 1978 filed by First
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ismael G. Bagundang, the two accused- appellants, Martin The charges having been allegedly committed at the same place and occasion and
Mandolado and Julian Ortillano, draftees assigned with the Alpha Company, 3rd Infantry involving all the four (4) accused in each instance were jointly tried per order of the trial
Battalion, Second Infantry Division, Philippine Army with station at Pikit, North Cotabato, court dated February 28, 1978 and after completion thereof, the two herein accused-
together with Anacleto Simon and Conrado Erinada, trainees attached to the appellants were found guilty while the remaining two accused, Anacleto Simon and
Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 3rd Infantry Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division, Conrado Erinada were acquitted. We quote hereunder the dispositive portion of the
Philippine Army, stationed at the Army Detachment along Simuay Junction, Simuay, decision now under review, to wit:
Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, were accused of murder for the death of the victims
Herminigildo Tenorio and his driver Nolasco Mendoza with the use of their firearms in the WHEREFORE, Martin Mandolado is found guilty beyond reasonable
afternoon of October 3. 1977 at Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, qualified with the doubt of the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 562 for the killing of
aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior Herminigildo Fajardo Tenorio, and also in Criminal Case No. 561 for the
strength. killing of Nolasco Mendoza, with the aggravating circumstances of (1)
'advantage was taken of his being a draftee in the Philippine Army,' and
Specifically, in Criminal Case No. 561, the information charged the accused as follows: (2) 'abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness' without the presence
of any mitigating circumstances and is meted the following penalty, to wit;
That on or about October 3, 1977 in the afternoon, in the Municipality of
Sultan Kudarat, Province of Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the In Criminal Case No. 562, for the killing of Herminigildo Tenorio, he is
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent sentenced to suffer the penalty of the crime in its maximum degree which
to kill, conspiring, confederating and helping one another with treachery, is death.
evident premeditation and the use of superior strength all armed with
high powered weapons did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously, and with the use of their guns shoot Mr. Nolasco Mendoza
 He shall pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P12,000.00 for the The facts are as stated in the People's Brief as follows:
death of this victim, and the amount of P20,000.00 as moral and
exemplary damages. In the morning of October 3, 1977, Julian Ortillano, Martin Mandolado,
Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon, trainees/draftees of the Armed
In Criminal Case No. 561 for the killing of the driver, Nolasco Mendoza, Forces of the Philippines and assigned to the 3rd Infantry Battalion of the
he is similarly sentenced to death. Philippine Army, were passengers of a bus bound for Midsayap, North
Cotabato (p. 8, t.s.n., Feb. 21, 1979). They alighted at the bus terminal in
He is to pay the heirs of said deceased the amount of P50,000.00 for the Midsayap. Being all in uniform, armed and belonging to the same military
death of said victim, and the amount of P100,000.00 as moral and outfit, they got acquainted and decided to drink ESQ rum, at the said bus
exemplary damages. terminal (pp. 10-11, Supra).

In both Criminal Cases Nos. 561 and 562, on the grounds of reasonable While drinking, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon decided to join appellants in going
doubt, Anacleto Simon and Conrado Erinada are both found not guilty. to Pikit, North Cotabato, home base of appellants (p. 59, Id.). After drinking for about an
This case against them (Anacleto Simon and Conrado Erinada) is hereby hour, appellant Mandolado got drunk and went inside the public market. Subsequently,
dismissed. he returned, grabbed his .30 caliber machine gun and started firing. His companions tried
to dissuade him but he nonetheless continued firing his gun (pp. 11-12, Supra).
In Criminal Cases Nos. 561 and 562, Julian Ortillano was found guilty as
an accessory. He fired his M-16 armalite whenever Martin Mandolado Sensing trouble, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon ran away, hailed and boarded a
fired his machine gun and this could be for no other purpose than to passing Ford Fiera with some passengers on board. Appellants followed and boarded
conceal or destroy the body of the crime in making it appear the victims also the vehicle (pp, 13-15, Supra). The soldiers forced the driver of the Ford Fiera to
were fighting them or running away or that somebody else like the MNLF, bring them to the Midsayap crossing (p. 58, t.s.n., July 24,1978).
rebels, NPA or bandits committed the crime. Furthermore, in his own
admission, the purpose of their attempt to leave Mindanao for Bulacan On their way, appellant Mandolado got his knife and tried to attack the driver (pp. 61-
after this incident was to hide and wait for the time when Martin 62, Supra). After appellants alighted at said crossing, the Ford Fiera sped away.
Mandolado could succeed in settling this case which is evidence that he Appellant Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at the speeding vehicle (p. 51,
assisted in the escape of the principal of the crime. t.s.n., Jan. 17, 1979) hitting the right side of the back of the driver's sister who was then
on board said vehicle (p. 64, t.s.n., July 24, 1978).
He is hereby sentenced in each of both cases to serve an imprisonment
term of six (6) years of Prision Correccional as the While waiting for a ride at the Midsayap crossing a privately owned jeep, driven by
Herminigildo Tenorio, passed by. On board said jeep which was bound for Cotabato City
minimum penalty, to seventeen (17) years of Prision Mayor as the maximum penalty. were Nolasco Mendoza and two (2) others, but the latter two alighted at said crossing.
Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon boarded the jeep. Thereafter, appellants ran after
Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano are to pay jointly and solidarily the the jeep, shout at Herminigildo Tenorio the driver thereof, to stop the vehicle and
cost of this litigation. subsequently, both appellants Mandolado and Ortillano boarded the jeep (p. 34, Supra).
On the way, both appellants kept firing their guns (pp. 54-55, t.s.n., Jan. 17, 1979)
prompting Herminigildo Tenorio to remark, "Kung hindi kayo tatahimik, ibabangga ko
SO ORDERED.
itong jeep" (Sworn Statement, Exh. Q., Mandolado) which literally means, "if you will not
stop firing your guns, I will ram this jeep into something. "
Given in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, the 28th day of June, 1979.
Upon learning that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit, North Cotabato,
( appellant Mandolado got angry, "cocked" his gun and ordered the driver to stop (pp. 36-
D 38, Supra). While the jeep was coming to a full stop, Conrado Simon and Anacleto
Erinada immediately jumped off the jeep and ran towards their detachment camp located
some two hundred fifty meters away. Appellants also got off the jeep. Thereupon, presence at said killings and of his having fired his armalite downwards after appellant
appellant Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at and hit the occupants of the Mandolado fired upon the killed the afore-named victims (Exh. "R ").
jeep (Sworn Statement, Exh. Q, Mandolado). Appellant Ortillano likewise, fired his
armalite, not at the occupants of said jeep but downwards hitting the ground. These Silverio Balderosa, on October 3, 1977, at about 12:30 p.m., was on board a "Pinoy"
bursts of gunfire were heard by both Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon who were jeep. On his way home to Midsayap, he passed a jeep parked along the highway
then already about fifty meters away from the jeep while running towards their towards the direction of Cotabato City and about 250 meters away from the BPH
detachment camp (pp. 38 and 42, t.s.n., Feb. 21, 1979). Although it was then raining building. The parked jeep was surrounded by several persons. Alighting from the "pinoy"
torrentially, Anacleto Simon recognized the bursts of gunfire as those of a machine gun jeep, he went near the parked jeep to see what happened. He saw the lifeless bodies of
(p. 43, Supra). two persons, one sprawled along the highway whom he recognized as Nolasco Mendoza
and the other whom he recognized as Mr. Tenorio slumped on the wheel of the parked
Appellants ran away from the scene and boarded another vehicle, alighting at Pinaring jeep (pp. 13-15, t.s.n., July 24, 1978).
crossing. Appellant Mandolado proceeded to a house where he left his belongings and
changed his wet uniform (p. 104, Supra). After about an hour, they rode in a "Hino" The postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Taeb Zailon, Municipal Health Officer of
passenger bus bound for Midsayap. On board said bus was a certain Mr. Leopoldo Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, upon the bodies of Tenorio and Mendoza on October 3,
Jalandoni who was seated in front of the appellants. 1977, were reduced into writing and reads as follows:

Upon reaching a BPH building near Nuling, Sultan Kudarat, the passengers of said bus POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT
were ordered to alight at the military check point but appellant Mandolado did not alight
(pp. 10-13, t.s.n., Oct. 5, 1975). As the bus was not proceeding to Pikit, North Cotabato Post-mortem examination was performed at the Rural Health Center, Sultan Kudarat,
and upon advice of Mr. Jalandoni, appellants alighted at the Midsayap crossing and Maguindanao on October 3, 1977 at around 3:30 p.m. in the presence of police officers
waited for a bus bound for Pikit (pp. 19-20, Supra). of Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao and personnel of the Health Center and other persons
in the vicinity.
Appellants were able to ride on a sand and gravel truck which took them to Pikit, North
Cotabato, arriving thereat at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. At their camp, PERTINENT PERSONAL DATA:
appellants returned their firearms, but did not report the incident. In the evening,
appellants attended a party at the Pikit Elementary School (pp. 32-35, t.s.n., April 16,
Name: HERMINIGILDO TENORIO
1979). The following day, appellants proceeded to Davao City but stopped at Kavocan
where they stayed overnight.
Sex: Male
Arriving at Davao City, the following morning, appellants went to see a movie and
afterwards proceeded to the Office of Doña Ana, a shipping firm (p. 40, Supra), where Age: 55 yrs. old
they saw a certain Sgt. Villanueva who was then leaving for Luzon. Sgt. Villanueva
informed the appellants that they were suspects in the Tenorio and Mendoza killings. Height: 5'5'
Immediately thereafter, appellant Mandolado purchased two passenger tickets for
Manila. The other ticket was for appellant Ortillano (pp. 120-123, Supra). However, Weight: 145 lbs.
before appellants could board the ship bound for Manila, they were apprehended by a
team led by Lt. Licas (p. 45, Supra). Appellants were brought to Pikit, North Cotabato C.S.: Married
where they were investigated by Lts. Licas and Maburang about the aforesaid killings.
The following day, appellants were brought to the headquarters of the 2nd MP Battalion Residence: Midsayap, N. Cotabato
at P.C. Hill, Cotabato City where they were again investigated. In said investigation, after
appellants were duly apprised of their constitutional rights, they executed and signed Place of Death: Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao
their respective sworn statements (Exhs. "O" and "R"). Appellant Mandolado admitted
the killing of Tenorio and Mendoza (Exh. "Q"); whereas appellant Ortillano admitted his
POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION FINDINGS Weight: 135 lbs.

1. Avulsed cranial content at the level of forehead including eyeballs; C.S.: Married

2. Wound-circular lacerate 3 inches in diameter T-T at lateral side of right deltoie region; Residence: Midsayap, North Cotabato

3. Wound-1 in. circular wound at the right forearm T-T 4 inches below the elbow; Place of Death: Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao

4. Comminuted fracture at right leg just below the knee cap; POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION FINDINGS

5. Comminuted fracture at right leg just above ankle; 1. Wound -Circular, one inch wide, one inch above right eyebrow;

6. Wound-1 in. circular non-penetrating at lateral side left arm; 2. Wound-Circular, 1/2 inch wide, lateral part of left side of neck:

7. Wound-1/2in.circularnon-penetrating at left region. 3. Wound-Circular, 3/4 inch wide, upper aspect of right deltoid muscle;

PROBABLE CAUSE OF DEATH 4. Wound-Circular, 1 1/2 inch wide, lateral aspect of right deltoid muscle; and

Hemorrhage severe secondary to multiple gunshot wounds. 5. Wound-Circular, 1 1/2 inch wide, lateral aspect of right breast 3 inches below arm pit.

Respectfully submitted: PROBABLE CAUSE OF DEATH

(SGD.) TAEB ZAILON, M.D. Wounds, gunshot, multiple shock, secondary hemorrhage, external-internal, extensive
Municipal Health Officer
Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao (Exh. "N") Respectfully submitted:

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT (SGD.) TAEB A. ZAILON, M.D.

Municipal Health Officer
Post-mortem examination report was performed at the Rural Health Center, Sultan Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao (Exh. "P")
Kudarat, Maguindanao on October 3, 1977 at 3:30 p.m. in the presence of police officers,
personnel of the health center and other civilians. Acting upon the letter request of the commanding officer, Lt. Rodolfo Villanueva, a
ballistic test was conducted by Sgt. Leon Platoon of the P.C. Crime Laboratory at
PERTINENT PERSONAL DATA: Cotabato City, on the firearms issued to appellant Mandolado, Anacleto Simon and
Conrado Erinada. In said test, bullets were fired from said guns and the empty shells,
Name: NOLASCO MENDOZA called test specimen (T05-1 to T-05-3), together with the empty shells recovered from the
scene of the crime called specimen evidence, and the 10 links of cal. 30 machine gun,
Sex: Male were forwarded to Camp Crame for Ballistic Examination (pp. 20-24, t.s.n., October 6,
1978). Sgt. Platoon marked the 8 shells of .30 caliber recovered from the scene of the
crime as HT-1 to HT-8 and the armalite shells as CM-9 to CM-13.
Age: 45 years old

Height: 5'4"
In the ballistic examination conducted by Reynaldo Pasatiempo of the Camp Crame Preliminaries: Dft Martin Mandolado please be informed that you are now
Criminal Laboratory, it was found that the caliber .30 shells recovered from the scene of under investigation by this unit in connection with the Shooting incident
the crime (Exh. "HT-1" to "HT-8 ") reveal Identical impressions as the test specimens of that happened at National Highway particularly near the vicinity of the
five empty shells ("T-05-1 to "T-05-3 ") fired from appellant Mandolado's machine gun. BPH Office at Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao on or about 031300H
Whereas the armalite shells recovered from the scene of the crime reveal non-identical October 1977. Before I ask you any questions, you must understand your
impressions with the shells fired from the armalites of Conrado Simon and Anacleto legal rights to wit: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say
Erinada. He then concluded that the .30 caliber shells recovered from the scene of the maybe used for or against you as evidence. You have the right to the
crime were fired from the same machine gun issued to appellant Mandolado (pp. 60-62, services of a lawyer of your own choice. If you cannot afford a lawyer and
t.s.n., October 6, 1978). you want one, a lawyer will be appointed for you before I ask you any
questions.
Appellants submit only one assigned error and that is, that the trial court erred in
convicting appellants Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano beyond reasonable doubt as Question: Are these all clearly understood by you?
principal and accessory, respectively, of the crimes charged on the strength of the
prosecution's evidence totally disregarding the evidence of the defense. Appellants Answer: Yes, sir.
contend that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the
circumstantial evidence of the prosecution merely proved the fact of the deaths of 2. Q— Do you wish now to proceed with this investigation
Tenorio and Mendoza and not as to the actual perpetrators of the crime; that the ever. in the absence of a lawyer of your own choice?
evidence of the prosecution being weak on its own, the only link of the appellant
Mandolado to the killings is his extra-judicial sworn confession, Exhibit "Q", which he
A— Yes sir.
stoutly repudiates for being unlawfully taken under force and duress and in the failure of
the investigator to apprise him of his constitutional right to remain silent and to be
assisted by counsel. 3. Q— Are you willing to give your statement without
being forced, coerced, intimidated or promised of any
reward whatsoever?
It is contended by the defense that although the ballistic expert and the firearm examiner
testified that they conducted ballistic and firearm examinations, respectively and that
their finding was that the caliber .30 empty shells were fired from the machine gun issued A— Yes sir.
to Martin Mandolado, the prosecution failed to prove that the "evidence specimen" (Exh.
"HT-1" " to Exh. "HT-8") were the empty shells recovered from the scene of the crime, 4. Q— Now that you are about to testify under oath, do
the prosecution not having presented any witness who recovered these empty shells. It you swear to tell the truth?
was not shown that these empty shells were recovered from the scene of the crime nor
that the slugs of these empty shells caused the gunshot wounds which resulted in the A— Yes sir.
death of the victims, Hence, the only link of appellant Martin Mandolado with the empty
caliber .30 shells was the fact that these shells were fired from his machine gun, yet the WAIVER
records disclose that Mandolado accidentally fired his machine gun at the Mintranco
Terminal in Midsayap, North Cotabato, which is not the scene of the crime, when he I have been advised of my legal right to remain silent; that anything I say
threatened the person who tried to steal his bag. maybe used as evidence against me, and that I have the right to a lawyer
to be present with me while I am being questioned.
Appellant Mandolado's claim that he was not previously apprised of his constitutional
rights before he executed his extra-judicial confession, Exh. "Q ", deserves scant I understand these rights and I am willing to make a statement and
consideration. His claim is clearly belied by the opening statements appearing in his answer to questions. I do not want the assistance of a counsel and I
sworn statement, which reads, thus: understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been
made to me and no force or pressure of any kind have been used against
me.
 (SGD.) MARTIN A. MANDOLADO which the offended party might make. (Art. 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code). The
Dft 07A-2853 PA prosecution evidence is quite clear and explicit that when appellants alighted from the
(Affiant) jeep, the accused Mandolado immediately fired his .30 caliber machine gun at the
occupants of the jeep, the victims Nolasco Mendoza and Herminigildo Tenorio, and both
And with respect to the accused-appellant Julian Ortillano, the same preliminary of them died instantaneously on the spot, and from this sudden means or manner of
questions were made to him before his investigation and he answered similarly as his co- attack, it can reasonably be concluded that it tended directly to insure its execution
accused Mandolado which is shown in Exhibit "R" and said Ortillano likewise executed without risk to the appellant-assailant and also deprive the victims of any chance or
the same waiver as that of his co- accused, which is marked Exhibit "R-A". opportunity to defend themselves. We also rule that the particular means or manner
employed by the appellant-assailant was consciously or deliberately sought and not a
The contention of both appellants that they signed their sworn statements (Exhibits Q mere accidental circumstance resorted to on the spur of the moment on the basis of the
and R) because they were maltreated and forced, cannot be believed, not only for failure evidence that the appellant had previously and repeatedly fired his .30 caliber machine
on their part to present any evidence of compulsion, duress or violence but also because gun at the bus terminal in Midsayap and had also fired the machine gun at the Ford Fiera
they even failed to Identify their investigators who allegedly inflicted maltreatment to which took them to Midsayap junction and that appellants waited for sometime riding on
them, much less complained to the officials who administered the oaths to their sworn board the jeep driven by Tenorio before they ordered the jeep to stop, alight therefrom
statements of such maltreatment, if any. Moreover, the sworn statements themselves and then shoot the occupants therein.
contain significant and important details which the affiants alone could have furnished,
thereby clearly revealing the voluntariness of said statements and rendering the same While the informations allege as aggravating circumstances that of evident premeditation
admissible as evidence. (People vs. Rosales, 108 SCRA 339; People vs. Regular, 108 and the use of superior strength, aside from treachery, We cannot agree with the finding
SCRA 23, 39; People vs. Tintero, 111 SCRA 714; People vs. Estero, 91 SCRA 93,99). of the trial court that the aggravating circumstances of (1) advantage was taken of his
being a Draftee in the Philippine Army, and (2) abuse of confidence or obvious
The conviction of appellant Mandolado for double murder appears to be based not only ungratefulness were present in the commission of the crime.
on his extra-judicial confession (Exhibit Q) but also upon the following circumstances
which proved that he did shot and kill the victims, Tenorio and Mendoza, beyond While it may be true that a soldier in the Armed Forces of the Philippines is deemed as
peradventure of doubt. And these are listed in the People's Brief, to wit: "(1) he one who holds public position (U.S. vs. Gimenea, 24 Phil. 464, where a constabulary
repeatedly fired his .30 caliber machine gun while intoxicated at the bus terminal in soldier was held to be a public officer), there is no persuasive showing that herein
Midsayap (pp. 11-12, t.s.n., February 21, 1979); (2) that he fired at the Ford Fierra which appellants being draftees of the Army, in full military uniform and carrying their high-
took them in the Midsayap junction (p. 51, Supra) hitting one of its passengers (p. 64, powered firearms, facilitated the commission of the crimes they were charged. It may be
t.s.n., July 24, 1978); (3) that Anacleto Simon while running away from the jeep driven by conceded that as draftees, the accused could easily hitch hike with private vehicles, as in
the deceased, heard a burst of machine gun fire coming from the direction of the jeep (p. the case of the deceased Tenorio's owner-type jeep, but there is no evidence that when
42, t.s.n., February 21, 1979); (4) the result of the Ballistic examination showing that the they stopped the jeep the accused already intended to shoot the occupants of the
shells recovered from the scene of the crime were fired from the gun issued to appellant vehicle. As it was held in People Pantoja, 25 SCRA 468, 471 which We reiterate that
Mandolado (pp. 60-62, t.s.n., October 16, 1978); (5) the attempted flight of both "There is nothing to show that the appellant took advantage of his being a sergeant in
appellants from justice (pp. 120-123, t.s.n., April 16, 1979) and which act clearly the Philippine Army in order to commit the crimes. The mere fact that he was in fatigue
indicates guilt for the 'wicked teeth where no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold uniform and had an army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his
as the lion, and lastly (6) appellant's own admission before the lower court that he killed public position in the commission of the crimes ... "
Tenorio and Mendoza although he claims the same to be accidental (pp. 7-8, t.s.n.,
October 6, 1978). " There is also merit in appellants' contention that there could be no abuse of confidence
as the evidence on record showed the lack of confidence by the victims to the appellants,
The killing of the two victims in the case at bar is correctly qualified as murder, there that this confidence was abused, and that the abuse of the confidence facilitated the
being present the qualifying circumstance of treachery which is alleged in the commission of the crimes. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating,
informations. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the it is necessary that "there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of such a
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense relationship to commit the crime." (People vs. Comendador, 100 SCRA 155, 172). It is
also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal which may be demonstrated by previous or simultaneous acts which
such as would give that accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the contributes to the commission of the offense as aid thereto whether
crime; that such confidence was a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the physical or moral (People vs. Silvestre, et al., 56 Phil, 353, 356). As aptly
culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse stated in People vs. Tamayo (44 Phil. 38, 49): 'It is an essential condition
said confidence (People vs. Hanasan, 29 SCRA 534). In the instant case, there is to the existence of complicity, not only that there should be a relation
absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person
might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just met each other then. charged as accomplice, but it is further necessary that the latter, with
Consequently, no confidence and abuse thereof could have facilitated the crimes. knowledge of the criminal intent, should cooperate with the intention of
supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an
Similarly, there could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the efficacious way. (People vs. Custodia, 47 SCRA 289,303 [19721).
crime for the simple reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior
to the criminal act and the breach thereof as contemplated under Article 14, par. 4 of the In the case at bar, Ortillano, by his acts, showed knowledge of the criminal design of
Revised Penal Code are manifestly lacking or non-existent. In all likelihood, the accused Mandolado. He was present when Mandolado tried to attack the driver of the Ford Fierra
Army men in their uniforms and holding their high-powered firearms cowed the victims with a knife and fired at the vehicle hitting a female passenger (p. 4, Decision). When
into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which certainly is no source of Mandolado got angry and "cocked" his gun and ordered Tenorio to stop the jeep, their
gratefulness or appreciation. two other companions, Simon and Erinada, immediately jumped off the jeep and ran
away, but Ortillano stayed. In a display of unity with Mandolado, Ortillano fired his
The finding of the trial court that: "There is no doubt about Martin Mandolado's state of armalite while they were riding in the jeep of the victim (p. 5, Decision). And Ortillano's
intoxication. He was so drunk that even his three (3) companions armed with M-16 act of firing his gun towards the ground manifested his concurrence with the criminal
armalite feared him. The same thing was true with the MPs," should credit said accused intent. In other words, Ortillano's simultaneous acts supplied, if not material, moral aid in
with the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness but which the trial court decision failed the execution of the crime in an efficacious way. Ortillano's presence served to
to appreciate in his favor. Accordingly, the penalty to be imposed upon the accused- encourage Mandolado, the principal, or to increase the odds against the victims (U.S. vs.
appellant Mandolado shall be reduced in the computation thereof. Guevara, 2 Phil. 528 [1903]; People vs. Silvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil. 353 [1931]).

With respect to the accused-appellant Julian Ortillano who was found guilty as an In convicting the accused Ortillano as an accomplice, We, however, appreciate the
accessory in Criminal Cases No. 561 and No. 562 for having fired his M-16 armalite mitigating circumstance of drunkenness in his favor, the same as We did to his co-
whenever Martin Mandolado fired his machine gun and, according to the court, this could accused Martin Mandolado, the principal defendant.
be for no other purpose than to conceal or destroy the body of the crime and making it
appear that the victims were fighting them or running away or that somebody else like In resume, the crime committed by the accused-appellant Martin Mandolado is murder,
the MNLF, rebels, NPA or bandits committed the crime, and for assisting in the escape of qualified by treachery. There being no aggravating circumstance but having found and
the principal Martin Mandolado) of the crime and sentenced in each of both cases to appreciated drunkenness which is not habitual as a mitigating circumstance, the penalty
serve imprisonment for a term of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to prescribed under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code which is reclusion temporal in its
seventeen (17) years of prision mayor as maximum, We find and hold that the accused- maximum period to death shall be imposed in its minimum period. Applying the
appellant Julian Ortillano should be convicted, not as an accessory, but as an Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused shall be sentenced to imprisonment of ten
accomplice. (10) years and one (;) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum in each case.
An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts, provided he has no direct participation in its execution or does not force or induce As to the accused-appellant Julian Ortillano, convicted as an accomplice to the crime of
others to commit it, or his cooperation is not indispensable to its accomplishment (Art. murder, and appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness which
18, Revised Penal Code). is not habitual, the penalty to be imposed upon him shall be one degree lower than that
imposed for murder (Article 52, Revised Penal Code), which will be in the minimum
To hold him liable, upon the other hand, as an accomplice, it must be period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused Ortillano shall be
shown that he had knowledge of the criminal intention of the principal,
sentenced to imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months of prision correccional as
minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum in each case.

With respect to damages, for the death of Herminigildo Tenorio, the award of P12,000.00
as compensatory damages and P 20,000.00 for moral damages is hereby affirmed.

For the death of Nolasco Mendoza, We reduce the award of P50,000.00 as

compensatory damages to P12,000.00 We also reduce the award of P100,000.00 as
moral damages to P20,000.00.

The liability of the appellants for the above damages which shall be paid to the heirs of
the victims shall be in solidum (Article 110, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the trial court is
hereby MODIFIED. The accused-appellant Martin Mandolado is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 561 for the killing
of Nolasco Mendoza and in Criminal Case No. 562, for the killing of Herminigildo
Tenorio. There being no aggravating circumstance but having found and appreciated
drunkenness which is not habitual as a mitigating circumstance, said accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal as maximum in each of the two cases.

The accused-appellant Julian Ortillano is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
as accomplice in the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 561 for the killing of Nolasco
Mendoza and in Criminal Case No. 562 for the killing of Herminigildo Tenorio. Similarly,
there being no aggravating circumstance but having found and appreciated the mitigating
circumstance of drunkenness which is not habitual in his favor, said accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum
in each case.

In Criminal Case No. 561 for the killing of Nolasco Mendoza, We sentence both accused
to pay the heirs of the victim P12,000.00 as compensatory damages and P20,000.00 as
moral damages. The liability of the accused shall be in solidum.

In Criminal Case No. 562 for the killing of Herminigildo Tenorio, We sentence both
accused to pay the heirs of the victim P12,000.00 as compensatory damages and
P20,000.00 for moral damages. The liability of the accused shall also be in solidum.

Costs against the appellants. Judgment modified.

G.R. No. 75267 September 10, 1990 hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. He is furthermore ordered to
indemnify the victim Brigida Venancio, in the amount of P30,000.00.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. SO ORDERED. 2
CARLOS DELA CRUZ y VENANCIO alias "BOSYO", accused-appellant.
The evidence of the prosecution tended to establish the following:
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
At about 8:00 o'clock p.m. on 6 September 1980, Brigida Venancio—then barely seven
Ponciano G. Hernandez for accused-appellant. (7) years old 3 — was walking through a heavy rain, alone and without an umbrella,
bound for her grandparents' house. While Brigida was passing by the Chapel in Sta.
Cruz, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, the accused Carlos dela Cruz y Venancio, a blood relative of
Brigida (the record does not disclose in what civil degree), suddenly reached out from the
FELICIANO, J.: doorway and grabbed Brigida's arm and pulled her inside the Chapel. In the Chapel,
where it was dark the lights being off, the accused led her to the last pew, pinned her
There are not many crimes more morally repugnant than the sexual violation of a young child. This case involves such a down on the pew and removed her panty. 4 Accused also removed his pants and
crime: rape committed, with the bravado of evil, in a place dedicated to prayer and worship of the Supreme Being. Accused- immediately introjected or sought to introject his penis into little Brigida's private organ.
appellant was charged with raping a 7-year old girl in Criminal Case No. SM-2219 in a complaint which read as follows:
While so engaged, the accused covered Brigida's mouth with his one hand twisted her
arm with his other arm. Accused succeeded in placing his organ on top and at least
Criminal Complaint partially into Brigida's private part. 5 Shortly, thereafter, while the two (2) lay down on the
pew, head to head, with panty and pants on, respectively, two (2) young parishioners
The undersigned complainant, Marciano Venancio, father of the minor, Luzviminda Mendoza and Marilou Carpio, entered the Chapel for a scheduled prayer
Brigida Venancio accuses Carlos dela Cruz y Venancio alias "Bosyo" of rally and switched on the lights. Luzviminda Mendoza saw Brigida, who immediately
the crime of rape, penalized under the provisions of paragraph 3, Art. 335 stood up almost simultaneously with the accused, dazed and soaking wet. 6 Another
of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows: parishioner Mrs. Francisca Mendoza, Brigida's teacher in Grade I primary school, arrived
in the Chapel a little later. She too saw Brigida and the accused and wondered why she
That on or about the 6th day of September, 1980, in the municipality of was still abroad rather than at home at such a late hour. 7 Mrs. Mendoza advised Brigida
Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of to go home immediately which Brigida did. On her way back to her parents' house,
this Honorable Court, the said accused Carlos dela Cruz y Brigida met Luzviminda Mendoza's father, Mang Domeng, who on noticing her dazed
Venancio alias "Bosyo", with lewd designs, did then and there wilfully, condition accompanied her home to her doorstep.8
lawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with a seven-year old girl,
Brigida C. Venancio, against her will and consent committed with force After the rally, Luzviminda who was an aunt of Brigida, did not go home directly but went
and violence. to the house of Brigida's parents 9 and asked the mother why Brigida was soaking wet
and still not at home at that late hour. After Luzviminda had left, the mother asked Brigida
Contrary to law. 1 (Emphasis supplied) what had happened. Brigida then told her mother she had been violated by Carlos
"Bosyo" dela Cruz. 10
The accused during the arraignment pleaded not guilty. After trial and in due course of
time, on 20 February 1985, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of The next day, 7 September 1980, Brigida and her parents and accompanied by Marilou
which stated: Carpio went to the office of the Police Station Commander of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, and
reported the rape of Brigida by the accused and had the matter reflected on the police
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Carlos dela Cruz y Venancio, guilty blotter. 11 In the afternoon of the same day, Brigida was brought by her parents to the
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") office in Manila for medical examination. 12 The
under Article 335 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, he is examination was conducted by Dr. Nieto M. Salvador who issued a Medico Legal Report
dated 7 September 1980 which set forth the following
 FINDINGS Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts
are undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and tight. There are not external signs
General Physical Examination: of recent application of any form of trauma.

Height: 67 cms. Weight: 20 kgs. Genital:

Normally developed, fairly nourished, conscious, coherent, cooperative, There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and gaping
ambulatory subject. with the pale brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating
the same are disclosed a congested vulvar mucosa, a tight and intact
Breasts infantile. fourchette and an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with a deep, healed
laceration at 6 and shallow, healed laceration at 3 and 9 o'clock. External
vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the introduction of the
No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted.
examining index finger.
Genital Examination:
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative
diplococci and for spermatozoa.
Pubic hair, absent. Labia majora and minora, coaptated. Fourchette
tense. Vestibule, reddish and congested. Hymen, intact. Hymenal orifice,
Remarks:
minular admits a tube 0.5 c.m. diameter.
Subject is in non-virgin state physically. 16
Conclusion:
The defense's version of the facts was simply that the rape never happened. The
Hymen intact. 13
accused testified that he had come from work and stopped by and stayed at the Chapel
waiting for the rain to stop. 17 He dozed off, he said, and upon waking up, found a child
Brigida's parents, however, did not think very much of the medical sleeping on a pew some little distance from where he himself had fallen asleep. He
examination conducted by Dr. Salvador. Brigida's mother later testified in testified that he saw Mrs. Francisca Mendoza talk to the child; that he had not done
court that she believed the examination had been done hurriedly and anything to Brigida; that he had not inserted his organ into Brigida's private part; and he
cursorily and haphazardly. 14 Notwithstanding the conclusion of Dr. had not removed her panty nor lain on top of her. 18
Salvador's report that Brigida's "hymen [was] intact", Brigida's parents
were determined to pursue their complaint on behalf of Brigida. They
The accused's bare denial was not corroborated by any other witness. Luzviminda
were not, however, able to lodge one immediately against the accused,
Mendoza's testimony, even if presented by the defense, strongly suggested that
since the police investigator was not in his office whenever they went to
something out of the ordinary had happened on the evening of 6 September 1980 inside
the police station. 15 Thus, on 18 September 1980, Brigida and her mother
the Sta. Cruz Chapel; for, as noted, she proceeded to Brigida's home right after the
went to the Philippine Constabulary Criminal Investigation Service (CIS)
prayer rally, indicating that finding the child Brigida with the accused in the Chapel in
at Camp Crame for assistance. There, Brigida was again examined by
such a condition—soaked to the skin and dazed—had aroused her concern.
PC Medico-Legal officer Dr. Desiderio Moraleda who made the following
Upon the other hand, the testimony of the child Brigida in open court was starkly simple
FINDINGS:
and straightforward. She said:
General and Extragenital:
Atty. Regalado:
Q Brigida, do you know a person by the name of Carlos Q On the night that you reported to your mother, what
dela Cruz or "Bosyo"? exactly did you tell your mother on the night you reported
it to your mother?
A Yes, sir.
A That Bosyo "hinubaran po ako ni Bosyo at inilabas niya
Q If he is inside this courtroom, can you point to him? and kanyang titi at inilagay sa kiki ko po".

A That man (witness pointing to a man who responded to Q What else did he do to you?
the name of Carlos dela Cruz).
A He covered my mouth with his hands.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What else?
Q Ida, you earlier said that you have a complaint please
tell us what that complain was? You are complaining A He twisted my arm, sir.
against whom?
Q Will you please show the Honorable Court how your
A Bosyo, sir. arm was twisted by the accused?

Q Why? Ida, did you also complain to your mother about A This way, sir. (Witness holding her right wrist by her left
Bosyo? hand and twisting the same.)

A Yes, sir. Q Now Bosyo you said "hinubaran ka. . . "

Q What did you complain to your mother about? Court:

A Bosyo undressed me, sir. Was the panty removed?

Q Are you also making the same complaint here or what? Atty. Hernandez:

A The same, sir. We agree to that translation, your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx Court:

Court: Go ahead.

Proceed. Atty. Regalado:

[Atty. Regalado:] Q When Bosyo pulled down your panty, will you please
state before this Honorable Court how he put down your
panty?
 A (Witness showing that her panty was being put down.) A Sta. Cruz, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, sir.

Q When your panty was down already, what did Bosyo Court:
do, if any?
Aside from you and Bosyo, were there other persons
A He put his penis on my vagina, sir. (Witness there?
demonstrated by movements)
A None, sir.
Court:
Atty. Regalado:
Q Were you sitting or standing at the time or were you
lying? Q How many minutes did this Bosyo had the opportunity
of putting his penis in your vagina?
A I was lying sir.
A Quite a few seconds, sir.
Q And how did he do it?
xxx xxx xxx 19
A (Witness demonstrated the manner how Bosyo laid on
top of her.) (Emphasis supplied)

Court: The trial court which heard Brigida's testimony from beginning to end, found that her
statements had the ring of truth and were convincing. The trial court said:
Proceed:
The Court is not unmindful of that judicial pronouncement deeply
Atty. Regalado: embedded in jurisprudence that the accusation for rape is easily made,
hard to prove, but harder to be defended by the party accused, though
Q At the time, what place was that where you said you innocent. (U.S. v. Flores, 26 Phil. 262). In this case, however, it is
were lying? inconceivable and it is extremely difficult for the Court to believe that a
seven year old girl, unmotivated and so blissfully innocent could concoct
A On a long bench, sir. a narration such as she testified to in Court. That she did not complain to
her Aunt or to her teacher when the two found her in the Chapel with the
accused is understandable. She was so young, just a child. She must
Q Approximately, if you can remember what time was that
have been shocked by what has been done to her by the accused. No
in the evening?
wonder she was speechless. She could not comprehend what happened.
The pain in her vagina when she urinated upon reaching home however
A Around 8:30 in the evening, sir. must have been such that constrained her to tell her mother what the
accused did to her.
Q Where did the incident happen?
Against the narration of a guileless 7 year old girl, the mere denial and
A Inside the chapel, sir. protestation of innocence of a 25 year old man cannot prevail. The Court
is thoroughly convinced of the truth of Brigida Venancio's story. No more
Q You said chapel, what chapel was that? need be said. 20 (Emphasis supplied)
We find no basis for disagreeing with the evaluation of the trial court. A I think so because the appearance is reddish which is
not normal, it should be pinkish. 25 (Emphasis supplied)
The appellant, however, insists that the charge against him had not been established
beyond reasonable doubt. He urges that there is significant variance between the result Dr. Moraleda's finding, upon the other hand, was that Brigida's hymen had in fact been
of the medical examination conducted on Brigida by the NBI doctor, Dr. Nieto M. lacerated, showing that there must have been some penetration. The fact that Dr.
Salvador, who found Brigida's hymen to have been "intact" and the result of the Moraleda's examination of Brigida took place eleven (11) days after the examination by
examination conducted a few days later by the Philippine Constabulary CIS physician, Dr. Salvador does not impair the credit worthiness of Dr. Moraleda's findings. It is
Dr. Desiderio Moraleda who concluded that Brigida was then "in a non-virgin state". important to note, moreover, that the testimony of the child Brigida herself is quite
Accused submits that the finding of Dr. Salvador should prevail over that of Dr. Moraleda consistent with the findings and testimony of both Dr. Salvador and Dr. Moraleda that
since the findings of the former were obtained barely twenty-four (24) hours after the there had been some penetration at least of the labia of Brigida's female part. Brigida's
alleged rape had occurred while Dr. Moraleda examined Brigida some eleven (11) days testimony stated, in relevant part:
after the violation. Accused further argues that even assuming the truth of Brigida's
testimony in open court, such testimony indicated that the accused's male member was Court:
merely placed on top of the private part of the victim Brigida and had not passed into
it, 21 and that there was no proof at all that his male member had penetrated into the Q Ida, you said he put his penis into your vagina, does his
female opening of the victim. penis get into your vagina or not?

Apropos the above argument, we note, firstly, that medical findings are not indispensable A Only on top, sir.
in the prosecution of the crime of rape. 22 We note, secondly, that the fact that a woman's
hymen is found intact does not show that there had been no penetration by an accused's
Q It did not go in.
male organ. It is well-settled doctrine that the slightest penetration of the pudenda is
quite sufficient for the consummation of the crime of rape. In People v. Abonada, 23 the
Court pointed out that "the medical finding that the hymen is intact does not negate rape. A No, sir.
Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the female organ even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape." 24 Moreover, Dr. Salvador Q And did you feel any pain or you did not feel any pain?
testified that he had found physical evidence of "manipulation" of the vagina or the
vestibule thereof, which is consistent with entry into the lips of the female part of Brigida: A Yes, sir, I felt pain, sir.

Court: Q Why did you feel pain, what pain? Where was the pain
on your vagina or your body as a whole?
Q You use the word manipulation, what was
manipulated? A In my vagina, sir.

A The attempt to insert a finger or in some other cases Q Was medical report?
wherein the man attempts to insert his erected penis on
the child whose genitalia is not yet ripe, with that Fiscal:
particular act, there is no way that the penis can go inside
the vaginal opening because at this age, the vaginal The record of the fiscal's office show there were two
opening is still narrow, normal, .5 cms. medical examinations.

Q In this particular case of Brigida, there were signs that Court:

there were manipulations?
 Q Ida, you said a short time did you urinate at that time? of the rape. Nonetheless, the trial court could have and should have found the presence
of the generic aggravating circumstance of commission of the offense in a place
A Yes, sir. dedicated to religious worship. 27 The trial court made no mention of such aggravating
circumstance in its decision. Because the appropriately imposable penalty of reclusion
Q What about this Bosyo did he urinate? perpetua is an indivisible penalty, and was in fact imposed by the trial court, the finding
that we here make of the presence of this generic aggravating circumstance, does not
impact upon the imposable penalty. 28
A No, sir.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court dated 20 February 1985 must be, as it is
Q How do you know you urinated?
hereby, AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
A (Witness does not answer.)
SO ORDERED.
Q Did you know whether something came out from the
penis of Bosyo?

A Sticky fluid and dropped on my thigh.

Q But you said you urinated, when did you urinate at the
time or when?

A When I went home, sir.

Q Did you notice any or rather did you notice whether or

not there was blood around the area of your vagina?

A No, sir. 26 (Emphasis supplied)

Brigida's statement that she had felt pain in her private part would have been
incomprehensible if there had been absolutely no penetration, not even of the
labia by the accused's male organ. It appears to the Court that the 7-year old
Brigida was much too young to be capable of distinguishing between the penis
merely lying outside the vagina and on top of the pubes, from the erect penis
poking into the labia in the effort to get into the vaginal canal, but being unable to
do so because of the unripe or infantile condition of the canal. We agree with the
conclusion of the trial court that there had in fact been some penetration at least
of the labia and that consequently, the crime that was committed was
consummated rape.

It was proven at the trial that the violation of the child Brigida took place in the Sta. Cruz
Chapel in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, a building dedicated to and actively used for religious
worship. The criminal information did not apparently specify the place of the commission
 G.R. No. L-13007 December 23, 1960 last argument, it is argued that, as a member of the corps of security guards of the
Hukbalahap, to which appellant like Cunanan, as "Capt. Mendoza", guard the bases of
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LOPE CUNANAN, alias operation of said organization, where presumably, the captives were kept before their
PERLA, ET AL., defendants. release, and that, accordingly, the fact he guarded them does not necessarily show that he
RAYMUNDO ABESAMIS, alias RADING, alias TEDDY, alias MIKE, alias MUNDING, alias was a privy to the commission of the crime charged.
UTO, Defendant-Appellant.
The record shows, however, that upon being dragged from their house in Pagsanjan, on
Ernesto Escaler for appellant. April 23, 1953, at about 7:30 p.m., the Fernandezes and their captors, after crossing a river,
Office of the Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Atty. E.A. Salva for appellee. went afoot to the mountains; that after passing by steep trails, at about midnight, they
reached a place in the mountains where there was an improvised hut among coconut trees;
CONCEPCION, J.: that, placed in said hut, the Fernandezes were heavily guarded, not only during that evening,
but also, during the entire period of their captivity; and that among those who so guarded
them was appellant Raymundo Abesamis and his co-defendant Ruperto Esquillo, who did not
Appeal by defendant Raymundo Abesamis, alias Rading, from a decision of the Court of First appeal. Although, there is no direct evidence as to the identity of each and everyone of the
Instance of Laguna, convicting him, as well as Lope Cunanan, alias Commander Perla, and members of the members of the band who went to the house of Dr. and Mrs. Fernandez, in
Ruperto Esquillo, alias Sergio, alias Alex, who have not appealed, of the crime of kidnapping the evening of April 23, 1953, except as regards Lope Cunanan, there is nothing to indicate
with ransom and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties that there had been a change, either of the band, or in the composition thereof, at any time
prescribe by law, to indemnify, jointly and severally, Dr. and Mrs. Zosimo Fernandez in the during the period above mentioned. Indeed, the record suggests that there had been no
sum of P40,000.00, and to pay the proportionate part of the costs. change in the composition of the group, from the midnight of April 23 to the early morning of
April 24, when Mrs. Fernandez and Buenaventura Fernandez first recognized Abesamis
The lower court found, and it is not disputed, that, on April 23, 1953, at about 7:30 p.m., among their captors. Moreover, there is evidence to the effect that the same group of men
Dorotea Fernandez, wife of Dr. Zosimo Fernandez, their daughter Fe and the family driver, guarded the captives from April 24 to May 8, 1953. Again, it has been clearly established that
Buenaventura Fernandez, were forcibly taken from their house in Pagsanjan, Laguna, and the kidnapping was made by Huks under the command of "Capt. Mendoza", or Lope
brought to the mountains by a band of about seventeen (17) armed men headed by Lope Cunanan, and Abesamis admittedly belonged to the Huk detachment under such command.
Cunanan, who was addressed by his men as "Capt. Mendoza". While in the hideout of the In fact there is no question that the Fernandezes were kidnapped for purposes of ransom, in
malefactors, Mrs. Fernandez copied, by order of Cunanan, a letter prepared by him and which, accordingly, each one of the conspirators had a special interest. Hence, none of them
addressed to Dr. Fernandez, demanding P80,000.00 for the release of Dorotea, Fe and would have normally allowed the intervention of a stranger, not only because he could
Buenaventura Fernandez. Three (3) days later, captives were taken further into the mountain jeopardize the success of their plan, as well as their own security, but, also, because he
fastness, where they stayed for thirteen (13) days. On different occasions, during this period, would thereby be placed in a position to except and demand a share in the ransom money,
Cunanan bade Mrs. Fernandez to write the letters Exhibits C, D and E, urging her husband to and, consequently, reduced the share therein of the original conspirators. The incriminatory
expedite the raising of the ransom money. Moreover, Cunanan, as "Capt. Mendoza", statements - to the effect that Abesamis was a member of the band that took the
exchanged correspondence with Dr. Fernandez with respect to the amount of the ransom Fernandezes from their house in the evening of April 23, 1953, and he was a party to
money which was eventually reduced to P40,000.00. Upon payment thereof early on May 8, conspiracy to commit the crime charged - found in Cunanan's extra-judicial statement, merely
1953, the captives were released. corroborated the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and is indicative of their
veracity.
Although positively identified by Mrs. Fernandez and her driver Buenaventura Fernandez (Fe
Fernandez did not take the witness stand, for she was abroad at the time of the hearing), as Anent appellant's last argument, it appears that upon receipt of information to the effect that
one of the armed men who guarded the complainants during the entire period of their an understanding had been reached with Dr. Fernandez, on May 7, 1953, there was a
captivity, Abesamis maintains that the lower court erred in convicting him of the crime general rejoicing in the second hideout of the malefactors; that at about 4:00 p.m., the latter
charged. More specifically, appellant contests the sufficiency of the evidence of conspiracy proceeded with their captives from said hideout to their first hideout, which they reached at
between him and Cunanan to commit said offense, upon the following grounds: (1) the only about 8:00 p.m.; that, the next day, a man came and said: "they are ready, they are there",
direct evidence thereon is an extrajudicial confession of Cunanan, which is inadmissible in referring evidently to the bearers of the ransom money; that at about 2:00 p.m. the
evidence that appellant was one of those who forcibly took the Fernandezes from their house malefactors brought the captives down the mountain to a brook, in a slope where several
in Pagsanjan in the evening of April 23, 1953; and (3) it has not been proven that appellant friends of the Fernandezes were waiting with a bundle wrapped in a plastic cloth; that this
knew that the captives had been kidnapped for purposes of ransom. In connection with the bundle was delivered to Mrs. Fernandez, who, following instructions said to have been given
by Dr. Fernandez, opened the bundle and counted the money contained therein; that after
verifying that it amounted to P40,000.00 Mrs. Fernandez delivered the money to Cunanan
who took P10,000.00 for himself, gave P6,000.00 to his "lieutenant", and divided the balance
among the other members of his detachment - including Abesamis; and that after a brief wait,
the captives were released.

These events, which took place in the presence of Abesamis - particularly, the general
rejoicing and rather vociferous expressions of happiness made upon receipt of notice of the
agreement reached with Dr. Fernandez, in the course of which the captives were assured
that they would soon be released and that they would only have to wait for the ransom
money, and the share thereof actually taken by Abesamis - considered in relation to the other
facts adverted to above, leave no room for doubt that Abesamis was in conspiracy with
Cunanan and the other members of his detachment in the commission of the crime charged.

Although the same was perpetrated at night time, with the assistance of armed men,
constituting a band, the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the law(Articles 267 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 18[the crime charged was committed
before the approval of Republic Act No. 1084, on June 15, 1954]) for said offense - namely
death - cannot be imposed upon appellant herein, for lack of the number of votes necessary
therefor, owing to the fact that the head of the band, Lope Cunanan, had been sentenced to
life imprisonment.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant
Raymundo Abesamis. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez,
David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
 [G.R. No. 125633. December 9, 1999] house, she was told to undress, she did because of fear, as the man was holding a bolo.
Thereafter, the man embraced and kissed her. Then she was told to lie down and told to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO ALFANTA y separate her legs. The man inserted his penis into her vagina. After inserting the mans penis
ALO, Accused-Appellant. to her vagina, she was told to lie face down. She complied, thereafter, the man inserted his
penis into her anus. After inserting the mans penis into her anus, she was told to turn around
DECISION face up. All these acts of the man hurt her. After turning around face up, the man inserted his
fingers in and out into her private part. After the man had finished inserting his fingers in and
out of her private part, she was told to go near him and lie beside him, and not to dress up as
VITUG, J.: he was going to take a rest and at the same time telling her not to tell what happened to
others saying that lahat ng nirape ko ay pinatay ko dahil sa ayokong may magsumbong. All
Before this Court, by way of automatic review, is the decision, dated 29 July 1996, of the the time the man was inserting his penis and fingers into her private part and into her anus,
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 82, convicting1 accused-appellant Rolando she was shouting: tulungan po ninyo ako,' but nobody responded. Noticing that the man was
Alfanta y Alo of rape with two aggravating circumstances and sentencing him to suffer the already sleeping, she suddenly got the knife at waist of the man and stab the man on his
extreme penalty of death. chest. The knife broke. She suddenly grabbed the bolo and hack the man several times.
Thereafter, she put on her dress, got hold of the bolo and ran to the signal office of soldiers.
Rolando Alfanta was charged with the crime of rape in an information that simply read: When she arrived at the signal office of soldiers, she told the persons she met that she killed
a man. The bolo was taken from her by the soldiers. With, soldiers, they went to the place
That on or about the 26th day of August, 1995, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within where she was raped. They found the man lying down still alive. The man was brought to the
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and hospital. The man turned out to be accused Rolando Alfanta y Alo. Thereafter, she executed
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge an affidavit (Exh. C), narrating what happened to her to the police; and was brought to the
upon the person of one NITA FERNANDEZ y JOSEFA against her will and consent.2 NBI Medico-Legal Officer for examination.

When arraigned on 27 September 1995, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the On cross examination she testified that, from Valle Verde, Pasig City, where she worked as
crime charged. Trial thereupon ensued. housemaid, she went to her friends house named Patrick because she brought mongo and
because she and Patricks wife Inday, are friends, arriving in the house of Patrick at 6:30 in
the evening of August 26, 1995. She was not able to go back to her place of work at Valle
The evidence of the parties has been recited in good detail by the trial court in its decision
Verde, Pasig because it was already late at night and was told to sleep at Patricks house.
under review, thus:
Earlier that evening, at 9:00, she saw accused passed by in front of the house. Aside from
her two (2) other persons slept in the house of Patrick, Inday and son. She slept in the sala,
The first prosecution witness was Dr. Noel Minay, Medico Legal Officer of the National while Inday and her son in a room. The door of the house was closed, but was not locked. In
Bureau of Investigation who testified that on August 27, 1995 at around 5:45 in the afternoon, entering the house were she slept, one has to reach the sala first. When awakened, she
he performed a physical examination and medico genital examination on one Nita Fernandez shouted, but nobody heard her because they were sleeping and at the same time the
for alleged rape. Upon physical examination he found mark swelling on the left lower jaw or accused placed his hand on her mouth. She was really afraid because she was boxed on her
on the mandibular area left portion; and, upon examination of the hymen, he found that the chest and accused was holding a bolo. While outside the house she was boxed. At the
labia majora and minora gaping, similar to the appearance of a woman who had just given garage, which was not lighted, she was told to undress. She followed, because of fear.
birth; or a normal appearance as a result of several sexual intercourses that had been Accused also undressed himself. While accused was on top of her, holding a bolo, she cried.
performed. He submitted a report on his findings (Exhibit A). Accused is not her sweetheart. She even said, why will I hack him if he is my sweetheart.

The next witness was Nita Fernandez, the offended party alleged in the information who The last witness for prosecution was Lilia Hogar of the Womens Desk Unit, Makati Police
testified that on August 26, 1995 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, while asleep in the Station who testified that she came into the possession of the bolo, Exh. D, because Nita
residence of a friend at AFOVAI Fort Bonifacio, Makati city, a man whom she had not seen Fernandez was brought to Sub-Station A. The bolo, which was brought by Nita Fernandez to
before suddenly entered the house where she was sleeping, pulled her, boxed her jaw and the Military Signal Village, was in turn given to the Central Police Desk wherein she is the
put his hand on her mouth, and told her that if she will not obey him, he will kill her. She Investigator. After the bolo was handed to her by the soldiers of the Signal Village, she
resisted, but could not do anything. Thereafter, she was forced to climb a fence. Because of conducted an investigation. Based on her investigation, she learned from Nita Fernandez that
fear, as the man was holding a bolo, she followed. After climbing the fence, the man when Nita Fernandez woke up at 12:00 midnight on August 26, 1995, Nita Fernandez saw a
instructed her to go to a vacant house. She followed, as instructed. While at the vacant
man standing beside her. Nita was punched on the left portion of the face and ordered her to roof to protect them and ashamed to stay at Ablons house. Even Nita does not like to sleep in
go outside, instructed to climb over a fence on the other side of the house. After climbing the Ablons place, saying that instead of sleeping at Ablons place, she prefers to go back at Valle
fence, Nita Fernandez was told to undress, was boxed on her breast and was told to lie down Verde. He did not allow Nita to go back at Valle Verde because it was already late at night
in a vacant house owned by Captain Pascua, where suspect raped Nita Fernandez. On their and if anything happens to her, her daughter who knows his relationship with Nita will blame
way to the hospital on board the Makati Police car, she asked accused why he rape Nita him. He did not bring Nita to Gen. Icarmas house because it is crowded and the Colonels
Fernandez. Accused answered that Fernandez was not telling the truth because they were house is just 20 meters from Captain Pascuas house. They went to the Colonels house,
sweethearts. climbing the fence. When they climbed the wall, he was carrying banig, pillow and blanket,
and did not notice that Nita was carrying a knife. Nobody live in the Colonels house and was
Defense presented the accused. Accused testified that on August 26, 1995, while at AFOVAI closed. They slept in the terrace of the house on a cement flooring. While he was sleeping
Village, Municipality of Makati, fixing the fence of the house of General Renato Icarma Nita hacked him with a kitchen knife. When hacked, he just said aray. The bolo was not used
together with many other laborers, somebody told him that his wife was waiting for him in the in hacking him. After stabbing him, Nita left and went to the Military Police leaving the kitchen
house of Captain Pascua. At 10:00 oclock that evening, he went to the house of Captain knife. When the Military Police arrived, he was no longer at the Colonels house because he
Pascua; and upon reaching the house, he knocked, and called Patrick Augusto Ablon, the went to another house, where he slept. After he was stabbed, he asked the assistance of
caretaker of Captain Pascua. Belinda Ablon, the cousin of Patrick Augusto Ablon, opened the Ablon. Ablon was the one who called for the Military Police. He did not leave the colonels
door. After opening the door, Nita Fernandez, his live-in partner for almost a year came out, house. He just stayed in the premises. Despite his wounds, he was able to sleep and woke
in an angry mood, because she has been waiting for him for long, and asked him why he was up at 5:00 in the morning. When asked why Nita stabbed him, he said that it was because he
late. He explained that he did not expect her to come, as his understanding with Nita hurt Nita by holding Nita's hand and pushing her on her chest when Nita insisted in leaving
Fernandez was, he will call her by phone or write her before she comes. Then Nita for Valle Verde; and because he hurt Nita, he did not file a complaint against Nita for hacking
Fernandez told him that they talk outside as she was ashamed with the neighbor, and they him.3
will disturb the child who was sleeping. After half hour talking, he invited Nita to sleep. He and
Nita went to a vacant house, owned by a Colonel passing a fence. When they arrived in the In the decretal portion of the decision, the court a quo has pronounced judgment, thus:
vacant house, it was closed, so they slept in the terrace. He denied doing what Nita
Fernandez claimed he did. He claimed that, he was surprised why Fernandez hacked him, for WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Rolando Alfanta y Alo guilty beyond reasonable
he knows of no reason why Nita Fernandez will hack him. He believes that Nita Fernandez doubt of the crime of rape, penalized by Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
concocted the story of rape because of fear that he will file a case against Nita Fernandez for with aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
hacking him. the maximum penalty of death, and indemnify complainant Nita Fernandez the sum
of P50,000.00, plus the costs of the suit.4
On cross-examination, accused testified that, he has been staying in the house of General
Romeo Icarma (the house where he and 15 other workers were constructing a fence), since Now before the Court, accused-appellant seeks the reversal of the conviction and the
1990. His livelihood was, as a Mason, since 1993. In February 1995, the daughter of Nita imposition of the death penalty decreed by the trial court; he contends that -
Fernandez named, Lucia who is married to Lito introduced him to Nita. He and Nita became
sweethearts in February 1995. They have not live together because Nita was working at Valle
I. THE TRIAL COURT [HAS] ERRED IN FINDING AND CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
Verde. They only meet during Nitas day off. He has been at Nitas place of work, but he used
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.
to call then at her telephone numbers which are 6326062 and 6356060. They used to see
each other at Gen. Icarmas place where he lived. On August 26, 1995, when the incident in
questioned happened, Lucia and Lito were no longer residing at Gen. Icarmas place because II. THE TRIAL COURT [HAS] ERRED IN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE
they were told to leave in April 1993. On August 26, 1995, while in the squatters area, just AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF NIGHTTIME AND IGNOMINY.5
100 meters away from the house of Gen. Icarma, Nita came, looking for him. Because Nita
does not know the workers in Gen. Icarmas house, Nita left and went to the house of Captain The case can be described as not really being too far from the typical rape cases that have
Pascua, just at the back of the house of Gen. Icarma. While at the squatters area, Melchor been previously reviewed by the Court. It is a case, like the instances before it, of two people,
Rudy Abella told him that Nita was looking for him. He went to the house of Captain Pascua. each testifying on the same incident but making a clearly discordant testimony. Since only the
At Captain Pascuas place, he met Nita. Present in the house of Captain Pascua were participants could directly testify on the sexual congress, here conceded to have taken place,
Augusto Ablon, his wife Rubylin, Belinda, a cousin and a small child who were all awake, extreme care is observed in evaluating the respective declarations of the complainant and the
except the child. Although Ablon was very much willing to accommodate him in Ablons accused. The doctrinally accepted rule is to accord great respect over the assessment of the
house, he brought Nita to the house of the Air Force Colonel because if it rains, there is a trial court on the credibility of the witnesses and, in the usual words of similar import
employed by the Court, it would be best not to disturb the findings of the court which has Q Now, while you were there on that date and time at the house of your friend in AFOVAI
heard the evidence except only when a material or substantial fact has truly been overlooked Fort Bonifacio Makati City do you recall of any unusual incident that happened?
or misappreciated which if properly taken into account can alter the outcome of the
case.6 Regrettably for accused-appellant, no such exceptive instances of possible oversight A There was sir.
are perceived or evident in this case.
Q Will you kindly tell what that incident was?
Complainant gave a thorough narrative account, so found to be credible by the trial court and
by this Court as well, of what had transpired during the late hour of the night in question. A During that time while I was sleeping in the residence of my friend suddenly there was a
man who entered the house where I was sleeping.
Prosecutor Manola:
Q So when you saw that man entered the house what did he do if any?
Q Mrs. Witness will you kindly tell the Honorable Court where you were on August 26, 1995
at around 12:00 oclock midnight?
A I stood up because he was pulling me and then he put his hand in my mouth sir.

A At Fort Bonifacio.
Q What else happened after that?

Q What city or municipality?

A When I was resisting he boxed me and at that time he was holding a bolo and he said if I
will not obey him he will be going to kill me sir.
A I do not know but it must be here sir.
Q After that what transpired next Mr. Witness?
Q Meaning Makati City?
A He forced me to climb the fence and then I saw he was holding a bolo.
A Yes sir.
Q Did you climb over the fence?
Q Why were you there on that date and time Mrs. Witness?
A I climb sir because he forced me to climb the fence.
A I was sleeping in my friends residence.
Q Were you able to go over the fence?
Court:
A When I was over the fence already he told me to go to a vacant house.
Q What is the address of that friends residence at Fort Bonifacio?
Q How about the accused where was he when he ordered you to climb over the fence?
A At AFOVAI Fort Bonifacio Makati sir.
A He was at my back and he told me to go first and then he followed.
Q Why were you there at that time?
Q So after you went or cross over the fence what happened next Madam witness?
A Because I always go there and my sons residence is beside the house of my friend sir.
A He told me to go to the vacant house and there he himself told me to undress and I took off
Court: Proceed fiscal: my clothes he embraced me and kissed me sir.

Pros. Manola: Q Now when this man told you to go to the vacant house did you obey him?
A I was told to go to the vacant house there he told me to undress. A He told me not to shout because if I will shout he will kill me and the he inserted his penis
to my vagina sir.
Q Did you obey him?
Q After this Man inserted his penis in your vagina or private part what happened next Mrs.
A He told me to undress and he was holding a bolo. Witness?

Court: A He told me to lie front my face down and he inserted his penis to my anus sir.

Q The question of the prosecutor to you was did you obey the instruction of the accused for Q After that what happened next Mrs. Witness?
you to undress?
A Then he told me again to lie down and at the same time he inserted his fingers to my
A Yes sir. private parts going it and out sir.

Prosecutor Manola: Q After that what happened next Mrs. Witness?

Q Tell the Honorable Court why you do followed the instruction of that Man to go to that A He lie down because he was already tired of molesting.
vacant house and to undress why did you follow this instruction?
Q How about you what were you doing at that time when the accused this person according
A I was afraid that he might kill me sir. to you lie down after he put his fingers inside your private part?

Q Why do you say that he might kill you? A He asked me to go near him and lie down beside him.

A He like to rape me sir. Q Did you follow his instruction for you to lie near him?

Court: A Yes sir because he was holding a bolo sir.

Q You did not answer the question of the prosecutor why were you afraid? Q So what happened after you lie down beside this person?

A Because he was holding a bolo and he was at the same time boxing me sir. A He told me to put on my dress and at the same time he also told me that he does not want
me to tell it to anybody because he have raped many.
Prosecutor Manola:
Q Now if this person whom according to you raped you inside the court room would you be
able to recognize him?
Q So what happened after according to you you were instructed to undress?

A Yes sir I could recognize him.

A He embraced me and kissed me and told me to lie down.

Q Will you kindly look around the court room if you could recognize this person if he is inside?
Q And did you lie down as instructed by this Man?

Note: Witness pointed to a man who was pointed as the man who raped him and when asked
A He forced me to lie down and then he forced me to separate my legs sir.
his name answered as Rolando Alfanta.
Q And what happened when you were forced to open your legs?
Q Now after this person whom you just pointed to who answered by the name of Rolando A Yes sir.
Alfanta uttered the words lahat nang ni rape ko ay pinapatay ko dahil sa ayokong may
magsumbong what happened next Mrs. Witness? Q What was he doing?

A I pleaded to him and he said not to put on my dress because he is going to take a rest. A He was lying down sir.

Q After that what happened next if any Mrs. Witness? Q What happened after that?

A I saw him that he was sleeping already and then I suddenly got the knife and stab him in A When we arrived there he was still alive and he was brought to the hospital.
the chest sir.
Q Who brought him to the hospital?
Q After you stabbed him on his chest what happened next Mrs. Witness?
A The ambulance of the soldier.
A The knife broke and then I suddenly grabbed the bolo and hack and hack him sir.
Q Now do you remember having given a statement to the Makati Police in connection with
Q After you hacked this person who raped you what happened next Mrs. Witness? what you have just narrated or told or testified to this afternoon?

A I immediately put on my shirt and I got hold of the bolo and I run to the signal where the A I could remember.
soldiers were.
Q If that statement is shown to you would you be able to recognize it?
Q Did you reach this place signal where there are soldiers according to you?
A Yes sir.
A Yes sir.
Q Now showing you a statement attached to the records of the prosecutors office consisting
Q And what did you do when then when you arrived there? of two pages kindly go over it and tell us if you recognize this statement?

A I told him that I killed a person therein and give them the bolo. A Yes sir I could recognize this.

Q What happened after that when you informed the solders at signal that according to you Q Is that your statement
you have killed a person what happened next?
A Yes sir.
A We went to the person who raped me sir.
xxx xxx xxx.
Q And did you see him there?
Q Now this bolo which according to you surrendered to the soldier at the signal if you see this
A Yes sir. bolo again would you be able to recognize it again?

Q Who were with you when you went back to the place where you were allegedly raped? A Yes sir.

A The soldiers sir. Prosecutor Manola:

Q Did you find this person who raped you?

We would like to make reservation for this witness to identify this bolo when this bolo is Q By the way do you know the accused prior to the date that you were awakened?
presented by the policeman who is in custody of this bolo.
A I do not know him.
Court:
Q In short he is a complete stranger to you when he entered the room?
Q How about the knife which according to you was seen by you at the waist line of the
accused did you bring it also? A I saw him around 7:00 oclock in the evening that he was passing thru the front of the house
of my friends where I was sleeping.
A I did not bring it sir because it was broken sir it was only the bolo that I brought.
Q At that time that you were awaken by the accused with whom were you sleeping?
Q Now while you were being raped did you shout for help?
A Only me sir.
A Yes sir.
Prosecutor Manola:
Q How did you ask for help?
Q Now you said that while you and the accused were lying down first you stab him with the
A I asked for help but they were sleeping they did not hear me sir. knife how many times have you stabbed him with the knife?

Q The question to you was how did you ask for help? A I was not able to count because I was afraid of him.

A I cried and I said tulungan po ninyo ako. Q You said that after stabbing him with the knife which you broke you got hold of the bolo you
hacked him how many times have you hacked him?
Q Did anybody respond to your cries for help?
A I failed to count how many times. I hacked him because I was afraid of him he might kill
A None sir. me.

Q Now how did you feel while the accused was inserting his private part to your private part? Prosecutor Manola: That will be all for the witness.

A It hurt sir my vagina and my anus, my mouth that he boxed me sir. Court: Cross-examination.

Q Now why did you say that the accused was able to insert his penis into your vagina? Atty. Manalo: With the permission of the Honorable Court.

A He forced that to insert it. Court: Proceed.

Q Forced it to where? Atty. Manalo:

A He forced it to enter my vagina sir. Q Now who were with you at the time when you were sleeping at the house of your friend at
AFOVAI Fort Bonifacio?
Q Did you feel when the private part of the accused entered to your vagina?
A One of their children so there were three and I was one.
A Yes sir I feel it sir.
Q Were you sleeping in one room?
A I was sleeping in the sala sir. Q Now you said that the door was not locked was there any other improvised locked placed
in that door like a wood?
Q Now before you sleep in that house at the sala did you close the door of that house?
A They did not lock the door because they are in confident.
A It was closed but it was not locked.
Q Now what is the name of the owner of the house where you slept at that time?
xxx xxx xxx.
A Patrick sir.
Q Now when why were you interested in sleeping in the house of your friend when you could
already at the house of your employer? Q And how are you related to Patrick?

A Because I was bringing mongo to my friend because I am indebted to them sir. A His wife is my friend sir.

Q Now why did you not return to your employer after giving or handing that mongo to your Q What is the name of his wife?
friend?
A Inday sir.
A They told me to sleep there because it was already late at night.
Q Now when you were awaken while you were sleeping in the sala of the house of your
Q By the way what time did you go there? friend Inday did you not shout when you saw a person pulling you holding a bolo?

A Around 6:00 to 6:30 in the evening. A I shouted but they did not hear me because they were sleeping and at the same time he
placed his hands on my mouth sir.
Q And what time did you reach your friend at AFOVAI?
Q Now you said that you were boxed on the chest by the accused how many times were you
A 6:30 sir. boxed by the accused on the chest?

Q And Valle Verde is just in Pasig isnt? A I do not know how many times I was boxed sir because I was really afraid of him.

A Yes sir. Q But you were sure that you were boxed at the chest?

Q It is near where you are employed and it will take you one ride only to reach that place A Yes sir.
isnt?
Note: Witness demonstrating with her hands first pointing on her chest and also on her
A Three rides sir. mouth.

Q Now which is first to be reached from the front door of the house where you were sleeping Q Was it strong?
at the time the place where you were sleeping or the place of the room where the owner of
the house were sleeping? A Yes sir it was strong because the following day it has marked.

A First it is the sala where he passed. Note: Witness holding on his left chin.

Q How about on the chest?

Note: Witness demonstrating it was pointed on her chest. Q How big?

A It was not too strong sir. Prosecutor Manola: Immaterial your honor.

Q Did you fall down on your knee when you were hit by the blow? Atty. Manalo: To test the credibility, your honor.

A Yes sir. Court: Answer

Q Where? A It was dark and I was able to see and I do not know because I was afraid.

A I fell on the ground down. Atty. Manalo:

Q Where were you boxed by the accused? Q And then you lie down?

A Outside sir of the house. A He told me to lie down and he placed himself on top of me.

Q Now you said that you were ordered to undress and to lie down on the ground is that Q Was he still holding the bolo?
correct?
A Yes sir he was holding the bolo on his one hand.
A Yes sir.
Q How did you see him?
Q And you followed him?
A When he was holding the bolo with his one hand while I he was on top of me I cried and he
A He told me to undress in the garage and he also undressed himself and because I was was holding the bolo.
afraid because he was holding a bolo sir.
Note: Witness demonstrating the accused holding the bolo upward.
Q When he undressed himself was he still holding a bolo?
A When I cried he was on top of me sir.
A Yes sir one hand was holding the bolo the other one hand he was undressing himself.
Q What was he doing when he was on top of you?
Q Was it lighted the place?
A He was molesting me sir.
A None sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q How far were you when the accused was undressing himself?
Q Now what time did you see him passed by the house of your friend according to you?
A Near sir.
A 9:00 oclock in the evening sir.
Q Did you see his private part when he undressed himself?
Q Why were you sure that he was the one who passed by the house of your friend?
A Yes sir.
A I saw him that he was passing. Q You hacked him with the bolo because of you are too much jealousy is concerned because
your sweetheart was then womanizing?
Q Where were you at the time?
Prosecutor Manola: Misleading your honor.
A I was seating by the window sir.7
Atty. Manalo: I am on cross-examination your Honor.
The testimony of the complainant about the incident is straightforward categorical, and
relatively free from any serious flaw. No compelling reason is advanced to sufficiently Court: Answer.
persuade the Court to conclude that the trial court has erred in giving due weight and
credence to the testimony of the complainant. Neither is evidence adduced to show that the A Why will I get jealous I have nothing to do with him. I do not know him sir.
complainant has had any ulterior motive to prevaricate and enmesh accused-appellant in a
fabricated charge. The Court repeats the familiar doctrine that when a woman claims that she Atty. Manalo:
has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show such a fact so long as her
testimony can meet the test of credibility,8 for it is said that no woman in her right mind will cry
rape, allow examination of her private parts, or subject herself and her family to the Q Really?
humiliation concomitant to the prosecution of the case, unless the story were true. 9
A I do not know him. I really do not know him sir.10
Testifying in his defense, accused-appellant claimed that he and the complainant had been
lived-in partner for almost a year, and that while they did sleep together on 26 August 1995 at It would be rather strange an occurrence for a love-partner, if true, to stab her beloved for
the porch of the house of a certain Air Force officer, accused-appellant denied any carnal petty reasons. The trial court was not out of line when it made this evaluation; viz:
knowledge of the victim that evening. In his appeal brief, accused-appellant sought to negate
any possible or likely use of violence or intimidation, considering that: (a) in the house where This Court cannot accept the claim of accused that he and complainant Nita Fernandez were
the victim was sleeping on the night of 26 August 1995, there were at least three persons (the sweethearts, for such a claim defies rationality, let alone common sense, because if they
caretaker of the house Patrick Augusto Ablon, his wife Rubylin and the couples son) who were sweethearts, she will not hack him. Not only that, the manner on which she stabbed and
could have responded to any shout for help from the victim; (b) the door of the house was hacked him, first with a knife, then with a bolo, shows a complete anger to vindicate the
purposely left unlocked in order to enable accused-appellant to come into the house, and (c) outrage on her. If they were sweethearts, she would not have acted in the manner she did in
when the victim was made to climb a fence followed by the accused, she could have escaped stabbing and hacking him. At least, if they have some relationship, she would not show anger
but did not. the way she did.11

The sweetheart theory of accused-appellant would appear to be another worn out strategy, Neither would the presence of at least three persons on the night of 26 August 1995 in the
often resorted to as a last ditch effort, to exculpate oneself from criminal liability. No house where victim was sleeping necessarily disprove the sexual assault. It was already
documentary evidence of any sort, like a letter or a photograph or any piece of memento, was close to midnight when the incident occurred, and the other occupants of the house were by
presented to confirm a romantic liaison between accused-appellant and the complainant. The then apparently all sound asleep. The evidence is to the effect that accused-appellant
latter testified: immediately after getting into the house hit her on the jaw, put his hand on her mouth and
threatened to kill her if she dared refuse to yield to his demands. Understandably, the victim
Q Is it not a fact that you and the accused were sweethearts? was shocked, gripped by fear and then cowed into submission. Intimidation should be viewed
in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the
A No sir. offense and not by any kind of hard and fast rule. It would be unreasonable to expect the
victim to act with equanimity of disposition and to have the courage and intelligence to
disregard the threat made by accused-appellant.12
Q And that you went to that place AFOVAI just to meet him in that place?
The claim that the unlocked door of the house was a sign that the complainant wanted
A No sir he is not my sweetheart. Why will I hack him if he is my sweetheart?
accused-appellant to have a chance to see her during the late evening indeed should
deserve scant consideration. The so-called love angle was properly ruled out by the trial court The crime of rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
for lack of concrete evidence to establish any such relationship. following circumstances:

Anent the failure of the complainant to escape when accused-appellant ordered her to climb 1. By using force or intimidation;
a fence, it should be enough to state she did not appear to have had any real opportunity to
flee from the clutches of the intruder who was, in fact, just behind her. After scaling the fence 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
and while inside the abandoned and enclosed house, she could not have done any much
better since she was all the time within striking distance of the bolo-wielding malefactor.
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

And now on the propriety of an appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
and ignominy.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
Nighttime is said to be that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.22
dawn.13 The law defines nights as being from sunset to sunrise.14 By and of itself, nighttime
would not be an aggravating circumstance unless it is specially sought by the offender, or it is
specially taken advantage of by him, or it facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring In the case at bar, it remained uncontroverted that accused-appellant was armed with
the offenders immunity from capture.15 As an ordinary aggravating circumstance, nighttime a bolo to realize his criminal objective. Nonetheless, the use of a deadly weapon could not be
can be so considered provided it is duly proved although not alleged in the information. 16 The considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape 23 for not having been
Court entertains no doubt that appellant has specially taken advantage of the cover of correspondingly alleged in the information as to make the offense fall under the
darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime without being recognized. Accused- jurisprudentially referred qualified rape punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. In
appellant has abducted his victim, brought her to an abandoned and unlit house and then People v. Garcia,24 the Court declared:
unleashed his carnal desire on her, assured of the stillness of a sleeping world.17 The Court
has long held that this aggravating circumstance can be considered when an accused takes One further observation. Article 335 originally provided only for simple rape
advantage of the silence and darkness of the night to ensure impunity from his illegal act. 18 punishable by reclusion perpetua, but Republic Act No. 4111 introduced amendments
thereto by providing for qualified forms of rape carrying the death penalty, that is,
With respect to ignominy, the victim testified that after appellant had inserted his penis into when committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, when by
her vagina, appellant ordered her to lie face down and while in that position had his penis into reason or on the occasion of the rape the victim becomes insane, or, under the same
her anus. Thereafter, he ordered her to lie down again and this time he inserted his finger circumstances, a homicide is committed. The homicide in the last two instances in effect
inside her. The Solicitor General correctly invoked the case of People v. Saylan,19 where this created a special complex crime of rape with homicide. The first two attendant
Court said: circumstances are considered as equivalent to qualifying circumstances since they
increase the penalties by degrees, and not merely as aggravating circumstances
which affect only the period of the penalty but do not increase it to a higher
The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the degree. The original provisions of Article 335 and the amendments of Republic Act No. 4111
missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior, but also the same position as dogs do are still maintained.
i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy because The studies of
many experts in the matter have shown that this position is not novel and has repeatedly and
often been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation. (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if xxx xxx xxx.
the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise.20
Now, it has long been the rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded
Article 14, paragraph 17, of the Revised Penal Code considers to be an aggravating in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered
circumstance any means employed or circumstance brought about which add ignominy to the only as aggravating circumstances, (People v. Collado, 60 Phil. 610 [1934];
natural effects of the act. The circumstance, it is said,21 "pertains to the moral order [and] People v. Jovellano, et al., L-32421, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 156; People v. Fuertes, G.R.
adds disagree and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. No. 104067, January 17, 1994, 229 SCRA 289; People v. Rodico, et al., G.R. No. 107101,
October 16, 1995, 249 SCRA 309.) since the latter admit of proof even if not pleaded.
(U.S. v. Campo, 23 Phil. 368 [1912]; People v. Domondon, 60 Phil. 729 [1934]; People v. De
Guzman, G.R. No. 73464, August 1988, 164 SCRA 215.) Indeed, it would be a denial of the
right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of
due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form
punishable with death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and
resulting in capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was
arraigned.25

Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus, even if
there were aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy in attendance the
appropriate penalty would still be reclusion perpetua under the law. Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that 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.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant Rolando Alfanta guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION by
hereby lowering the penalty therein imposed from death to reclusion perpetua. An award
of P50,000.00 for moral damages is likewise ordered to be paid by accused-appellant
Rolando Alfanta to the victim Nita Hernandez in addition to the sum of P50,000.00 by way of
indemnity ex delictu granted by the trial court.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 148145-46 July 5, 2004 The accusatory portion of the Information for Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 00-
20693 reads as follows:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs. That on or about the 23rd day of February, 2000 in the City of Bacolod,
FELIX VENTURA y QUINDOY and ARANTE FLORES y VENTURA, appellants. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, without
DECISION any justifiable cause or motive, accused Felix Q. Ventura armed with a .38
Caliber Homemade Revolver and Arante Flores y Ventura armed with a bladed
PER CURIAM: weapon, with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident
premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab with said bladed weapon one
On automatic appeal1 before this Court is the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Jaime Bocateja, thereby causing upon of the latter the following wounds, to wit:
Negros Occidental, Branch 50, finding appellants Felix Ventura (Ventura) and Arante
Flores (Flores) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in Criminal Case No. 00-20692
and Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 00-20693. - multiple stab wounds

The accusatory portion of the Information for Murder in Criminal Case No. 00-20692 - #1 Posterior axillary area right
reads as follows:
- #2 Posterior axillary area left with minimal hemothorax
That on or about the 23rd day of February, 2000 in the City of Bacolod,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein - lacerated wound right parietal area
accused, conspiring, confederating and acting in concert, without any justifiable
cause or motive, with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident OPERATION PERFORMED:
premeditation, accused Felix Q. Ventura armed with a .38 Caliber Home-made
Revolver and Arante V. Flores armed with a bladed weapon, and by taking - Exploration of wound right parietal for removal of foreign body
advantage of their superior strength, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and stab with bladed weapon one Aileen Bocateja y thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of
Peruelo, thereby inflicting upon the person of the latter the following wounds, to murder as a consequence, but which nevertheless, did not produce it by reason
wit: of some cause or accident independent of the will of the perpetrator, that is, due
to the timely and able medical assistance, which saved the life of the victim and
- Cardio respiratory arrest the victim was able to escape.

- Hemothorax That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of
dwelling, night time, and with the use of an unlicensed firearm.
- stab wounds
Act contrary to law.3 (Emphasis supplied)
which wounds were the direct and immediate cause of the death of said victim, to
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the latter. When arraigned, appellants pleaded not guilty to both charges.4 The two criminal cases
were consolidated following which they were jointly tried.5
That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of
dwelling, night time and with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The spouses Jaime and Aileen Bocateja were, in the early hours of February 23, 2000,
fast asleep in their room on the ground floor of their two-storey house at Alunan-Yulo in
Act contrary to law.2 (Emphasis supplied) Bacolod City, Negros Occidental. The room had a glass wall with a glass sliding door
which was closed but not locked. The kitchen light was open, as was the light in the caliber revolver with five (5) live bullets, and from appellant Flores a blood stained
adjoining room where the couple's young children, Jummylin and Janine, were sleeping. knife16 measuring 14½ inches from tip to handle with a 10-inch blade.17
Their niece, Aireen Bocateja, and Jaime's elder daughter, Rizza Mae, were asleep in
their rooms on the second floor.6 Shortly after their arrest, appellants were interviewed by reporters from Bombo Radio to
whom they admitted responsibility for stabbing Jaime and Aileen. In response to
At around 2:00 a.m.,7 Jaime was roused from his sleep by appellant Ventura who, questions from the reporters, appellant Ventura explained that he suspected his wife was
together with his nephew appellant Flores, had stealthily entered the couple's room after carrying on an affair with Jaime.18
they gained entry into the house by cutting a hole in the kitchen door.
In the ocular inspection of the Bocateja residence, the CIU team found the spouses'
As established by the testimonial and object evidence for the prosecution, the following room in disarray, with some cabinets opened and blood splattered all over the floor, the
transpired thereafter: bed and the ceiling. 19

Appellant Ventura pointed a revolver at Jaime's face, announced a hold-up, hit Jaime on Aileen eventually died in the hospital on the same day of the commission of the
the head with the gun and asked him for his keys. 8 crime.20 Dr. Luis Gamboa, City Health Officer of Bacolod City who conducted the autopsy
of her body, found that she suffered a hack wound on her face and four stab wounds on
When appellant Ventura struck him again, Jaime called out for help and tried to grab the her body, three at the chest and one at the back of the right shoulder, all caused by a
revolver. The two men then struggled for possession of the gun. As Jaime almost sharp bladed instrument, such as the knife recovered from appellant Flores. One of the
succeeded in wresting possession of the gun from him, appellant Flores shouted to stab wounds penetrated Aileen's chest near the left nipple, the intercoastal space and
appellant Ventura to stab Jaime. Using the knife he the middle of her right lung causing internal hemorrhage and ultimately resulting in her
death.21
was carrying, appellant Flores stabbed Jaime three times. Jaime thereupon released the
gun, threw a nearby plastic stool at the jalousy glass window causing it to break and Jaime who was hospitalized for a total of six days, was treated by Dr. Jose Jocson,22 who
cried out for help.9 certified that he sustained the following non-lethal injuries: 23

In the meantime, Aileen who had been awakened, began shouting for help as she saw Multiple Stab Wounds
her husband in mortal danger. Appellant Flores stabbed her, however, with his knife, and
although Aileen tried to defend herself with an electric cord, appellant Flores continued #1 Posterior Axillary Area Right
stabbing her.10
#2 Posterior Axillary Area Left with Minimal Hemothorax
Awakened by the commotion, Aireen descended the stairs and saw the knife wielding
appellant Flores whom she recognized as a former employee of the butcher shop of the Lacerated Wound Right Parietal Area24
Bocataje spouses. Pleading with appellant Flores not to harm her, Aireen ran back
upstairs into Rizza Mae's room, and the two called to their neighbors for help.11 From the evidence for the defense consisting of the testimonies of appellants Ventura
and Flores and Primitiva Empirado, the following version is culled:
Appellants Ventura and Flores thereupon fled the Bocateja house,12 bringing nothing with
them.13 Four days after February 13, 2000 when appellant Ventura arrived in Negros Occidental
from Manila where he had been working as a security guard,25 he noticed that his wife,
Soon members of the Central Investigation Unit (CIU) of the Philippine National Police Johanna, who had previously been employed as a house helper of the Bocateja
(PNP) arrived in response to a flash report.14 Some of the police officers took the spouses spouses, was wearing a new ring. When he confronted her, she said that it came from
to the Western Visayas Regional Hospital,15 while other elements of the CIU team Jaime who was courting her, and that it was because Jaime's wife, Aileen, had
intercepted appellants Ventura and Flores who were being pursued by neighbors of the discovered their illicit relationship that she had been dismissed from the Bocateja
spouses at the corner of Araneta-Yulo. Recovered from appellant Ventura was a .38
household. Incensed at the revelation, he slapped his wife whereupon she left the FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused FELIX VENTURA y
conjugal home.26 QUINDOY and ARANTE FLORES y VENTURA GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as Principals by Direct Participation of the crime of ATTEMPTED
On February 22, 2000, Johanna returned to the conjugal home in Barangay Alegria, MURDER as alleged in Criminal Information No. 00-20693 with the
Municipality of Murcia, Negros Occidental to get her things. After a verbal confrontation aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, dwelling, nighttime
with her husband, she left to find work in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. This was the and the breaking of door to gain entrance to the house and with no mitigating
last time that Johanna and appellant Ventura saw each other.27 circumstance. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Temporal in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they
That same day, appellant Flores visited his uncle-appellant Ventura. The two spoke at shall serve a prison term of from Eight (8) years of Prision Mayor as Minimum to
length and appellant Flores, who had previously worked for a day at the meat shop of the Eighteen (18) years of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum.
Bocateja spouses, confirmed that Johanna and Jaime were having an affair.28
The Court also finds the two (2) above-named accused GUILTY as Principal[s]
Since appellant Flores knew where the Bocateja spouses lived, appellant Ventura asked by Direct participation for the crime of Murder as alleged in Criminal Information
him to go with him to their residence so he could confront Jaime about his affair with No. 00-20692 qualified by abuse of superior strength. The aggravating
Johanna.29 circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and by the breaking of a door are
present in the commission of the crime. There is no mitigating circumstance.
The accused, therefore, are meted the Supreme penalty of DEATH.
Appellants, armed with an unlicensed revolver and a knife, thus repaired to the Bocateja
residence still on the same day, February 22, 2000, arriving there at around 11:00 p.m.
They were not able to immediately enter the premises, however. After boring a hole By way of civil liability, the accused are solidarily ordered to pay the heirs of
through the kitchen door with the knife, appellants entered the Bocateja residence at Aileen Bocoteja the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity. The accused are
2:00 a.m. of the next day, February 23, 2000.30 likewise held solidarily liable to pay Jaime Bocateja the sum of P100,000.00 as
moral damages and the sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.35 (Emphasis
supplied)
Once inside, appellants entered the room of the Bocateja spouses through the unlocked
sliding door. Appellant Ventura woke Jaime up, confronted him and told him to stop his
relationship with Johanna. Jaime fought back, and he and appellant Ventura grappled for In their Brief,36 appellants contend that the trial court erred (1) in convicting them despite
possession of the latter's gun.31 the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) in
considering abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance in Criminal Case No.
00-20892; (3) in considering
Soon after, Aileen woke up, screamed for help, and began throwing things at appellant
Flores whom she attempted to strangle with an electrical extension cord. Unable to
breathe, appellant Ventura stabbed Aileen twice with his knife. And seeing that Jaime evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance in Criminal Case No. 00-20893; and
had wrested control of the gun from appellant Ventura, appellant Flores also stabbed (4) in considering the aggravating circumstances of breaking of door and nocturnity in
Jaime.32 both cases.37

Since appellants had not intended to kill Aileen or stab Jaime, they fled in the course of Appellants argue that, at most, they can only be convicted of attempted homicide for the
which Jaime began shooting at them with a 9 mm pistol. Appellants were eventually stabbing of Jaime and homicide for the fatal stabbing of Aileen.38
intercepted by policemen who placed them under arrest.33
From a considered review of the records and applicable jurisprudence, the instant appeal
Interviewed by the media after his arrest, appellant Ventura stressed that he just wanted fails.
to confront Jaime about the latter's relationship with appellant's wife, Johanna.34
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be
By the appealed Decision of December 15, 2000, the trial court disposed as follows: preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.39 For it to be
appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when WITNESS:
the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such A On that day, I don't know Jaime Bocateja.
determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.40
xxx
By appellants' argument, even if appellant Ventura became jealous when he learned of
the illicit affair between his wife and Jaime, it is not, by itself, sufficient proof that he ATTY. ORTIZ:
determined to kill the latter; that with Jaime's testimony that appellant had announced a
"hold-up," they, at most, intended to rob, but not kill the spouses; that their only purpose
Q On February 22. So that you did not ask your wife where the place of
was to confront Jaime regarding his supposed affair with appellant Ventura's wife,
Jaime Bocateja was at that time you were by him on February 22, 2000?
Johanna; and that if they had truly intended to kill Jaime, then appellant Ventura would
not have bothered to awaken him, but would just have shot him in his sleep.
A Johanna did not tell me the place of Jaime Bocateja.
These assertions run counter to the established facts and are debunked by appellants'
own admissions. Q Why did you not ask her where the house is, at that time?

Appellants admittedly arrived at the Bocateja residence at 11:00 p.m. and surreptitiously A What she told me was that, she is working in Bacolod City.
entered therein at 2:00 a.m. At that time, the surrounding premises were decidedly dark,
and all the members of the household were fast asleep. Armed with a gun and a knife, Q Mr. Witness, you had from February 17 to 22, a number of days to
they proceeded directly to the bedroom of the spouses, where appellant Ventura woke confront Mr. Jaime Bocateja. Did you not confront your wife or perhaps ask
up Jaime. These actuations are not of those seeking parley, but instead betray an her about the place or where this Jaime Bocateja was at that time and have
unmistakable intention to kill, not merely confront, Jaime. the intention to confront him, if that was really your intention to confront
him?
Indeed, when pressed during cross-examination to explain why he chose to "confront"
Jaime under the foregoing circumstances, appellant Ventura became evasive and did not WITNESS:
give a clear answer:
A No, I did not ask her because we had a confrontation and the next
Q Mr. Witness, you said that your purpose in going to the house of Jaime day, February 17, she left.
was only to confront him. My question is, why is it that you went there at 11:00
o'clock in the evening and not in the morning so that you will have all the Q Of course, when you arrived at the house of the Bocateja [spouses] at
opportunity to confront him? 11:00 o'clock in the evening, you were armed at that time, is that right, you and
your companion, Arante Flores?
A Because at that time, I was not on my proper frame of mind.
A Yes, sir.
Q Why, is it not a fact that as early as February 17, 2000, you were already
told by your wife that there was that relationship with Jaime Bocateja and your Q What was that weapon at that time?
wife?
A .38 caliber revolver.
A Yes, sir.
xxx
Q Why did you not immediately confront Mr, Bocateja after that day or
February 17? ATTY. ORTIZ:
 Q Mr. Witness, if your intention was only to confront Mr. Jaime Bocateja, ATTY. ORTIZ:
why is it that you did not wait or you did not come to that place earlier so
that at that time, Jaime Bocateja was still awake or perhaps waited until the Q You will admit Mr. Witness at the time you left your place at Brgy.
next day? Alegria you were already armed, is that right?

COURT: WITNESS:

Already answered. He said that he was not at the proper frame of his A Yes, sir.
mind.41 (Emphasis supplied)
Q Your uncle Felix Ventura was armed with [a] .38 caliber revolver, is that
Cross-examined on the same point, appellant Flores was equally evasive, but eventually right?
revealed that the timing and method of entry were purposely chosen to avoid detection
by either the Bocateja family or their neighbors: A Yes, sir.

Q You arrived in the house of Bocateja at about 11:00 o'clock is that Q And you were also armed with a bladed weapon is that correct?
right?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you have to bring this weapon Mr. Witness?
Q And your purpose in going to the house of Bocateja was only to confront
Jaime Bocateja about his relationship with Johanna is that right?
A We brought this weapon just to frighten Jaime Bocateja during [the]
confrontation.
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. ORTIZ:
ATTY. ORTIZ:
Q Are you saying Mr. Witness if your purpose was only to confront him
Q Why did you wait Mr. Witness why did you and the other accused Felix you have to bring this [sic] weapons?
Ventura wait for three (3) hours for you to confront him in his house?
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
A Because we were not able to enter the door right away because the
door could not be opened.
Q When you arrived at the house of Jaime Bocateja about 11:00 o'clock. . .
by the way when did you arrive at the house of Jaime Bocateja?
Q My question Mr. Witness, is this you ate your supper at Libertad
market at about 8:00 o'clock why did you not go to the house of Jaime
A 11:00 in the evening.
Bocateja at 9:00 o'clock immediately after supper? At that time when the
members of the family were yet awake?A We stayed at Burgos market and
then from Burgos to Libertad we only walk and from Libertad to the house Q Of course you did not anymore knock at the door Mr. Witness?
of Bocateja.
A No, sir.
 Q Or you did not also call any member of the family to open [the door Q I recall that you left Murcia [at] 4:00 o'clock. Is that morning or afternoon?
for] you, is that right?
A I left Murcia at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
WITNESS:
Q 4:00 o'clock from Alegria then to Alangilan, then to Bacolod, is that
A No, sir. correct?

ATTY. ORTIZ: A Yes, sir.

Q As a matter of fact you only broke the gate Mr. Witness in order to enter Q From Alangilan to Bacolod, what mode of transportation did you make?
the compound of the Bocateja family?
A From Alegria to Alangilan, we only hiked and then from Alangilan to
A We scaled over the gate. Bacolod we took the passenger jeepney.

Q And why do you have Mr. Witness to go over the fence and open a Q From Alegria to Alangilan, how long did it take you to walk? How
hole at the kitchen for you to confront Mr. Jaime Bocateja if that was your many kilometers?
purpose?
A Four (4) kilometers.
A The purpose of my uncle was just to confront Jaime.
Q And, I assume that while you were walking, you were talking with
Q And when you confront, are you saying that you cannot any more Arante Flores, your nephew, about the plans to go to the house of Jaime
knock at the door, perhaps call any member of the family inside the house? Bocateja?

WITNESS: A Yes, sir.

A No, sir. COURT:

ATTY. ORTIZ: Q By the way, what did you do at Alangilan?

Q Why Mr. Witness, Why? A I went there because my clothes were at my sister's house.

A We did not call or knock at the person inside the house because it will Q So, what time did you arrive in [Bacolod]?
make noise or calls and alarm to the neighbors.42 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied) A We arrived here in [Bacolod] late in the evening.

To be sure, all the elements of evident premeditation were clearly established from the Q I assume that you disembarked at Burgos Market?
lips of appellants themselves. Thus, on clarificatory questioning by the trial court,
appellant Ventura testified: A Yes, sir.

COURT: Q And you just walked from Burgos Market to Libertad Baybay to the house
of Jaime Bocateja?
A Yes, sir. A We used the knife in unlocking the door. We made a hole.

Q It took you about thirty (30) [minutes] to one (1) hour, more or less? Q You made a hole and with the use of your hand, you were able to unlock
the inside lock because of the hole?
A More than one (1) hour.
A Yes, sir.
Q And during this time, you were talking again with Arante Flores
[about] the course of action that you will take once a confrontation takes Q And I assume that it took you twenty (20) – thirty (30) minutes to
place with Jaime Bocateja? make that hole?

WITNESS: A Yes, sir.43 (Emphasis supplied)

A Yes, I asked him the location of 3rd Road since I do not know the The immediately foregoing narration was echoed by appellant Flores who gave the
house of Jaime Bocateja. following testimony on direct examination:

COURT: ATTY. JACILDO:

Q I assume that the front main door of the house was close[d] at that time, Q So from Brgy. Alegria where did you proceed?
correct?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
A We proceeded to Brgy. Alangilan.
Q You scaled that door, the front main door of the gate?
Q This Brgy. Alegria how far is it from Brgy. Alangilan?
A Yes, sir, we scaled the gate.
A The distance between Brgy. Alegria to Brgy. Alangilan is about three (3)
Q You were not able to open it but you simply scaled, you went over? kilometers.

A Yes, sir. Q So, what means of transportation did you used in going to Alangilan?

Q And you said yet, you destroyed the main door of the house. Can you A We walked in going to Alangilan.
tell the Court, how did you destroy the main door of the house?
Q When you arrived at Brgy. Alangilan what did you do?
A No, the kitchen door, sir.
WITNESS:
COURT:
A We went to our aunt's house.
Q How were you able to destroy it?
ATTY. JACILDO:
WITNESS:
Q From Alangilan where did you proceed?
 A In Alangilan, we stayed at the house of my aunt and then we pointed out by the Solicitor General, unless shown to be customary,45 appellants' act of
proceeded to Bacolod. arming themselves with a gun and a knife constitutes direct evidence of a careful and
deliberate plan to carry out a killing. Consider the following ruling of this Court in People
Q So what time did you arrived [sic] in Bacolod? v. Samolde:46

A 8:00 o'clock in the evening. As stated earlier, accused-appellant and Armando Andres tried to borrow
Cabalin's tear gas gun. This attempt by the accused-appellant and his co-
Q When you arrived in Bacolod, what did you do? accused to arm themselves prior to the commission of the crime
constitutes direct evidence that the killing of Feliciano Nepomuceno had
been planned with care and executed with utmost deliberation. From the
A We ate our supper at Libertad Market.
time the two agreed to commit the crime to the time of the killing itself, sufficient
time had lapsed for them to desist from their criminal plan had they wanted to.
Q After eating your dinner at Libertad, what did you do? Instead, they clung to their determination and went ahead with their nefarious
plan. x x 47 (Emphasis supplied)
A After eating our supper, we proceeded to the house of Jaime
Bocateja. From the time appellants left Murcia, Negros Occidental, after they had resolved to go to
confront Jaime, to the time they entered the Bocateja residence in Bacolod City, ten
ATTY. JACILDO: hours had elapsed – sufficient for appellants to dispassionately reflect on the
consequences of their actions and allow for their conscience and better judgment to
Q What time did you arrived [sic] at the house of Jaime? overcome the resolution of their will and desist from carrying out their evil scheme, if only
they had desired to hearken to such warnings. In spite of this, appellants evidently clung
WITNESS: to their determination to kill Jaime.

A 11:00 o'clock in the evening. That evident premeditation was established through the testimonies of appellants and
not by those of the prosecution witnesses is of no moment. While appellants could not
Q When you arrived at the house of Jaime, what did you do? have been compelled to be witnesses against themselves,48 they waived this right by
voluntarily taking the witness stand. Consequently, they were subject to cross-
A We enter[ed] the gate of their house. examination on matters covered by their direct examination.49 Their admissions before the
trial court constitute relevant and competent evidence which the trial court correctly
appreciated against them. 50
Q Please continue?
Although he admitted stabbing Jaime, appellant Flores sought to justify his actions by
A Then, we opened the door. claiming that he was impelled by the need to prevent Jaime from shooting his uncle,
appellant Ventura. This pretense does not impress.
Q And then?
To successfully claim that he acted in defense of a relative, the accused must prove the
A We reach[ed] [the Bocateja residence] at around 11:00 o'clock and we concurrence of the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person
tried to open the door but we could not open the door immediately. We killed or injured; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
made a hole so that we can get in the house. We entered the house at unlawful aggression; and (3) the person defending the relative had no part in provoking
about 2:00 o'clock in the morning the following day.44 (Emphasis supplied) the assailant, should any provocation have been given by the relative attacked.51 Of
these, the requisite of "unlawful aggression" is primary and indispensable without which
Undoubtedly, the accounts of appellants evince not only their resolve to kill Jaime, but defense of relative, whether complete or otherwise, cannot be validly invoked.52
the calm and methodical manner by which they sought to carry out his murder. As
Not one of the foregoing requisites of defense of a relative is present. From all accounts, x."62 Nevertheless, they argue that Aileen's death was not attended by abuse of superior
it was appellants who initiated the unlawful aggression, and it was the victim Jaime who strength since: (1) though ultimately unsuccessful, she was able to put up a defense
acted in self defense. Hence, neither the justifying circumstance of defense of a against appellant Flores; and (2) the prosecution failed to show that appellant Flores
relative53 nor the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative54 may deliberately took advantage of the disparity in their size and sex in order to facilitate the
be appreciated in appellant Flores' favor. commission of the crime.

While appellant Ventura did not directly participate in the stabbing of Jaime, the trial court Unlike in treachery, where the victim is not given the opportunity to defend himself or
correctly held both appellants collectively liable for the attempt on the latter's life since repel the aggression,63 taking advantage of superior strength does not mean that the
they were shown to have acted in conspiracy with each other. victim was completely defenseless. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of
the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim, considering the momentary
There is a conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the position of both and the employment of means weakening the defense, although not
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.55 Where conspiracy has been adequately annulling it.64 Hence, the fact that Aileen attempted to fend off the attack on her and her
proven, as in these cases, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of husband by throwing nearby objects, such as an electric cord, at appellant Flores does
the extent and character of their participation because, in contemplation of law, the act of not automatically negate the possibility that the latter was able to take advantage of his
one is the act of all.56 superior strength.

By stabbing Jaime Bocateja pursuant to their pre-conceived plot, appellants commenced On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an
the commission of murder directly by overt acts. Despite their efforts, however, they attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
failed to inflict a mortal wound on Jaime, hence, their liability only for attempted murder.57 constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon
used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend
With respect to the death of Aileen, the trial court found both appellants guilty of murder herself.65 Thus, in People v. Molas,66 where the accused was convicted of murder for
qualified not by evident premeditation but by taking advantage of superior strength, 58 to stabbing to death two women and an eight year old boy, this Court discoursed:
wit:
While treachery was not appreciated as a qualifying circumstance against Molas,
The killing of Aileen Bocateja is qualified by the aggravating circumstance of the killing of the three victims was raised to murder by the presence of the
abuse of superior strength. The accused Arante Flores who delivered the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. There was abuse of
stabbing blow is big and strong, standing about five feet and six (5'6") superior strength when Molas inflicted several mortal wounds upon
inches tall. His weapon was a 14 inch dagger. Aileen Bocateja [stood] only Soledad. Molas, besides being younger and stronger, was armed with a
about five (5'0") feet tall. The disparity of their strength is weapon which he used in seriously wounding her. That circumstance was
enormous.59 (Emphasis supplied) also present when he hacked eight-year old Abelaro and also Dulcesima
who, besides being a woman of lesser strength was unarmed.67 (Emphasis
supplied)
To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.60 The appreciation of
this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties, and And in the more recent case of People v.Loreto,68 this Court opined:
is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
the aggressor, assuming a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous to the The contention of accused-appellant is barren of merit. Article 14, paragraph 15 of the
aggressor, which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the Revised Penal Code provides that a crime against persons is aggravated by the accused
crime.61 taking advantage of superior strength. There are no fixed and invariable rules regarding
abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense of the victim.
Appellants "agree with the trial court that accused-appellant Arante Flores is taller, and Superiority does not always mean numerical superiority. Abuse of superiority depends
probably stronger than the victim Aileen Bocateja because of their difference in sex as upon the relative strength of the aggressor vis-à-vis the victim. There is abuse of superior
well as the fact that the accused appellant Flores was armed at that time x x strength even if there is only one malefactor and one victim. Abuse of superiority is
determined by the excess of the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim,
considering the position of both and the employment of means to weaken the defense, conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who
although not annulling it. The aggressor must have advantage of his natural strength to may help him put a violent resistance.74
insure the commission of the crime. In this case, accused-appellant was armed with a
knife and used the same in repeatedly stabbing Leah, a young wisp of a girl, no Here, it was established that upon seeing her husband being attacked by appellants,
less than eighteen times after overtaking her in the sala of Dan's house. Aileen immediately called for help and hurled objects at appellant Flores. And it was
Irrefragably, then, accused-appellant abused his superior strength in stabbing because of this passionate defense of her husband that appellant Flores hacked at her
Leah. In a case of early vintage [People v. Guzman, supra. at 1127], the Court held that: face and stabbed her four times. These factual circumstances are analogous to those
in People v. Belga,75 where this Court had occasion to state that:
There is nothing to the argument that the accused was erroneously convicted of
murder. An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed While it would seem that the main target of the malefactors were Alberto and
and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that Arlene Rose, this does not negative the presence of evident premeditation on the
superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and physical assault on the person of Raymundo Roque. We have established
from which the woman was unable to defend herself (U.S. vs. Camiloy, 36 jurisprudence to the effect that evident premeditation may be considered
Phil. 757; U.S. vs. Consuelo, 13 Phil. 612; People vs. Quesada, 62 Phil. 446). as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed (or
The circumstance of abuse of superior strength was, therefore, correctly wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the conspirators were
appreciated by the trial court, as qualifying the offense as murder.69 (Emphasis determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may
supplied; citations omitted) help him put a violent resistance. Here, Raymundo Roque provided such
violent resistance against the conspirators, giving the latter no choice but
By deliberately employing a deadly weapon against Aileen, appellant Flores clearly took to eliminate him from their path.76 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied,
advantage of the superiority which his strength, sex and weapon gave him over his citations omitted)
unarmed victim.
Thus, while appellants' original objective may have only been the killing of Jaime, the trial
As for appellant Flores' claim of self-defense, it cannot be sustained. As in defense of a court correctly held both of them responsible for the murder of Aileen. Co-conspirators
relative, one claiming self defense must prove by clear and convincing evidence70 both are liable for such other crimes which could be foreseen and are the natural and logical
unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed or injured and reasonable necessity consequences of the conspiracy.77 In Pring, et al. v. Court of Appeals,78 this Court held:
of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. As a third requisite,
he must also prove lack of sufficient provocation on his part.71 None of these requisites While the acts done by the petitioners herein vary from those of their co-
was shown to be present. As expounded by the trial court: accused, there is no question that they were all prompted and linked by a
common desire to assault and retaliate against the group of Loreto Navarro.
Arante declared that Aileen panicked and screamed and was hitting him with an Thus, they must share equal liability for all the acts done by the participants in
extension cord so he stabbed her. Arante was suggesting that had Ai[l]een such a felonious undertaking. While petitioners herein, Rogelio Pring and Alberto
remained cool, composed and friendly, she would not have died. (Roberto) Roxas, on their part, had ganged up Jesus Yumol who belonged to the
group of their adversaries by hitting the latter with a bench and a piece of wood,
This perverted reasoning need not detain the Court. There was an on-going and that it was a certain David Ravago who stabbed the deceased Loreto
aggression being committed inside her house and within the confines of her Navarro, nevertheless, it is a rule that conspirators would necessarily be
room, hence, Aileen's actuations were perfectly just and legitimate.72 liable also for the acts of the other conspirators unless such acts differ
radically or substantially from that which they intended to commit (People
As adverted to earlier, the trial court, citing People v. Dueno,73 did not consider evident vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536; People vs. Rosario, 68 Phil. 720).
premeditation as having aggravated the killing of Aileen since she was not the intended
victim of appellants' conspiracy. Upon further scrutiny, however, this Court finds that this The pronouncements made by this Court in the aforecited case of People vs.
aggravating circumstance should have been appreciated in connection with Aileen's Enriquez, still serve as the governing rule that should be applied to the case at
murder. Jurisprudence is to the effect that evident premeditation may be considered as bar. In the said case, this Court stated:
present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed, if it is shown that the
 "x x x x x x x x x in United States v. Andolscheck, "when a conspirator embarks upon a criminal
venture of indefinite outline, he takes his chances as to its content and
'We are of the opinion that this contention is not tenable. The accused membership, so be it that they fall within the common purposes as he
had undoubtedly conspired to do grave personal injury to the deceased, understands them." (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
and now that the injuries actually inflicted have resulted in death, they
cannot escape from the legal effect of their acts on the ground that one of Indeed, since they deliberately planned to attack Jaime in the sanctity of his bedroom
the wounds was inflicted in a different way from that which had been where his wife Aileen was also sleeping, appellants cannot now claim that the latter's
intended. x x x x x x x x x. violent resistance was an unforeseen circumstance. Hence, neither of them can escape
accountability for the tragic consequences of their actions.
'As has been said by the Supreme Court of the United States, 'If a
number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of In determining appellants' criminal liability, the trial court appreciated the generic
the crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery, all of aggravating circumstances of dwelling,81 nighttime82 and breaking of door83 in connection
them are responsible for the death of a person that ensues as a with both crimes.
consequence.' (Boyd vs. U.S., 142 U.S. 450; 35 Law. ed. 1077). In
United States vs. Patten, the court said: 'Conspirators who join in a Dwelling is considered aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy that the law
criminal attack on a defenseless man with dangerous weapons, knock accords to human abode.84
him down, and when he tries to escape, pursue him with increased
numbers, and continue the assault, are liable for manslaughter when the Thus, it has been said that the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows
victim is killed by a knife wound inflicted by one of the them during the greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm.85 Here, dwelling was
beating, although in the beginning they did not contemplate the use of a correctly appreciated since the crimes were committed in the place of abode of the
knife.' (42 Appeals, D.C., 239)" victims who had not given immediate provocation.86

Although during the incident in question the aggression committed by the Upon the other hand, as pointed out by both appellants and the Solicitor General, the
petitioners herein was directed against the other members of the group of Loreto breaking of a door was not alleged in either of the two informations. Thus, the same
Navarro and not on the deceased, this would not relieve them from the cannot be appreciated against appellants. On this point, this Court's discussion in People
consequence of the acts jointly done by another member of the petitioners' group v. Legaspi,87 quoted in the Solicitor General's Brief, is instructive:
who stabbed the deceased Loreto Navarro.79 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)
Nonetheless, it is to be noted that the appreciation by the trial court of the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime, despite the non-allegation
And in the more recent case of People v. Bisda, et al.,80 this Court held: thereof in the Information, resulted in the imposition of the supreme penalty of
death upon accused-appellant. In People v. Gallego (G.R. No. 130603, 338
Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates SCRA 21, August 15, 2000), We had occasion to rule thus:
which follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of
its probable and natural consequences even though it was not intended as "In People v. Albert (251 SCRA 136, 1995), we admonished courts to
part of the original design. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its severest
to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to form – death – because the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable.
collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose Any decision authorizing the State to take life must be as error-free as
intended. Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their acts possible, hence it is the bounden duty of the Court to exercise extreme
and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily and directly caution in reviewing the parties' evidence. Safeguards designed to
produces a prohibited result, they are, in contemplation of law, chargeable with reduce to a minimum, if not eliminate the grain of human fault ought not
intending that result. Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of to be ignored in a case involving the imposition of capital punishment for
another conspirator unless such act differs radically and substantively an erroneous conviction 'will leave a lasting stain in our escutcheon of
from that which they intended to commit. As Judge Learned Hand put it
 justice.' The accused must thence be afforded every opportunity to circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.88 (Emphasis
present his defense on an aggravating circumstance that would supplied)
spell the difference between life and death in order for the Court to
properly 'exercise extreme caution in reviewing the parties' Appellants and the Solicitor General also argue that nocturnity should not have been
evidence.' This, the accused can do only if he is appraised of the considered since Jaime himself testified that their bedroom was well-lit and there was
aggravating circumstance raising the penalty imposable upon him light coming from the kitchen and the adjoining bedroom of their children.89
to death. Such aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the
information, otherwise the Court cannot appreciate it. The death In determining nocturnity, two tests are employed in the alternative: (1) the objective test,
sentence being irrevocable, we cannot allow the decision to take away under which nighttime is aggravating because the darkness facilitated the commission of
life to hinge on the inadvertence or keenness of the accused in predicting the offense; and (2) the subjective test, under which nighttime is aggravating because
what aggravating circumstance will be appreciated against him. the darkness was purposely sought by the offender.90 Applying these tests to the
established factual circumstances, this Court concludes that nocturnity was correctly
xxx appreciated in connection with both crimes.

The principle above-enunciated is applicable to the case at bar. Consequently, While the bedroom where the crimes occurred was well-lit, the evidence shows that, in
we hold that due to their non-allegation in the Information for rape filed against furtherance of their murderous intent, appellants deliberately took advantage of
accused-appellant, the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling nighttime, as well as the fact that the household members were asleep, in order to gain
cannot be considered in raising the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant entry into the Bocateja residence. Indeed, their own testimony indicates that while they
from reclusion perpetua to death. were already outside the Bocateja house at around 11:00 p.m., they purposely waited
until 2:00 a.m. before breaking into the residence so as not to call the attention of the
xxx Bocatejas and/or their neighbors. It is thus clear that appellants deliberately took
advantage of the darkness of the night, not to mention the fact that the Bocatejas were
It is to be noted carefully that the rule on generic aggravating circumstances has fast asleep, to conceal their actions and to facilitate and insure that their entry into the
now been formalized in the Revised Rules of Criminal procedure, which took victims' home would be undetected.
effect on December 1, 2000. Section 8 of Rule 110 now provides that:
No mitigating circumstances are present to offset the foregoing aggravating
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. – The complaint or information circumstances. While the trial Court noted that appellants were apparently motivated by
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the their belief that Johanna and Jaime were carrying on an illicit relationship, to wit:
acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the The accused presented evidence to prove that Jaime Bocateja and Johanna
offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the Ventura, wife of the accused Felix Ventura, were maintaining an illicit
statute punishing it. relationship. The evidence on this point is principally hearsay – the alleged
admissions made by Johanna of the relationship. There is no doubt, however,
Likewise, Section 9 of the same Rule provides: that the accused Ventura believes that [his] wife and Jaime Bocateja are
clandestine lovers. It is fairly reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. – The acts or omission complained of contrary, that it is Ventura's belief of this illicit relationship which prompted him to
as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating confront Jaime Bocateja,91
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to it nevertheless ruled out passion or obfuscation92 or immediate vindication of a grave
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is offense93 as mitigating circumstances.
being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
While jealousy may give rise to passion or obfuscation,94 for the appreciation of this the law prescribes two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be imposed when,
mitigating circumstance it is necessary that the act which produced the obfuscation was in the commission of the deed, one aggravating circumstance is present. Consequently,
not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, the trial court's imposition of the supreme penalty of death must be sustained.
during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.95 In the same vein,
while "immediate" vindication should be construed as "proximate" vindication in Three members of the Court maintain their adherence to the separate opinions
accordance with the controlling Spanish text96 of the Revised Penal Code, still this expressed in People vs. Echegaray100 that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes
mitigating circumstance cannot be considered where sufficient time elapsed for the the penalty of death, is unconstitutional; nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the
accused to regain his composure.97 majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be
imposed.
In these cases, appellant Ventura's suspicions were aroused as early as February 17,
almost a week before the stabbing incidents on February 23, when he first confronted his As regards the civil liability of the appellants, the award of the trial court is hereby
wife about her ring. Moreover, as previously noted, ten hours had elapsed from the time modified as follows:
appellants left Murcia, Negros Occidental, weapons in hand, to the time they entered the
Bocateja residence in Bacolod City. Within that period appellant Ventura had opportunity In Criminal Case No. 00-20692, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Aileen as civil
to change his clothes at a relatives' house in a neighboring barangay and both appellants indemnity for her death is sustained, the commission of the crime by appellants having
were able to take their dinner at the Burgos Market in Bacolod City. They even waited been duly proven.101 The award of moral damages to her heirs is likewise proper
three hours outside the Bocateja residence before carrying out their plan. Without considering that the prosecution presented adequate proof that they suffered mental
question, sufficient time had passed for appellants' emotions to cool and for them to anguish and wounded feelings.102 However, the amount of moral damages awarded by
recover their equanimity. the trial court is hereby reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current
jurisprudence.103 It should be borne in mind that the purpose for such award is to
In fine, for stabbing Jaime, appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted compensate the heirs of the victim for the injuries to their feelings and not to enrich
murder qualified by evident premeditation with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling them.104
and nighttime. However, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, the trial court erred in
imposing the sentence of Eight (8) Years of prision mayor as minimum to Eighteen (18) The award of exemplary damages should be increased from P20,000.00 to P25,000.00.
Years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Such award is proper in view of the presence of aggravating
circumstances.105 Furthermore, considering that counsel for appellants admitted that the
Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a penalty two degrees lower than that heirs of Aileen incurred funeral expenses of P100,000.00106 and such admission has not
prescribed for the consummated penalty shall be imposed upon the principals in an been shown to have been made through palpable mistake, the same should be awarded
attempted felony. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic as actual damages.107
Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty two
degrees lower is prision mayor.98 Applying Section 1 of Act No. 4103,99 as amended, In Criminal Case No. 00-20692, the trial court did not grant Jaime's claim for P20,000.00
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and considering the presence of in actual damages for hospitalization expenses since he failed to present any receipts to
two aggravating circumstances, the proper imposable penalty falls within the range substantiate the same. Nonetheless, in light of the fact that Jaime was actually
of prision mayor in its maximum period (from Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day to Twelve hospitalized and operated upon, this Court deems it prudent to award P20,000.00 as
(12) Years) as maximum and prision correccional (from Six (6) Months and One (1) Day temperate damages.108 Moreover, Jaime is also entitled to moral damages in accordance
to Six (6) Years) as minimum. Accordingly, this Court hereby sentences appellants to an with Article 2219, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, which this Court hereby awards in the
indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years of prision correccional as minimum to Twelve (12) amount of P25,000.00.109 Finally, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 are also in order
Years of prision mayor as maximum. considering that the crime was attended by two aggravating circumstances.110

For fatally stabbing Aileen, appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder WHEREFORE, the judgment in Criminal Case No. 00-20693 is hereby AFFIRMED with
qualified by abuse of superior strength with the aggravating circumstances of evident MODIFICATION. Appellants Felix Ventura and Arante Flores are found GUILTY beyond
premeditation, dwelling and nighttime. As already noted, the penalty for murder reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted murder qualified by evident premeditation
is reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime and are hereby sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years of Prision Correccional as minimum to
Twelve (12) Years of Prision Mayor as maximum.

Appellants are solidarily ORDERED to pay the victim, Jaime Bocateja, the amounts of:
(a) Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as temperate damages; (b) Twenty Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as moral damages; and (c) Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00) as exemplary damages.

The judgment in Criminal Case No. 00-20692 is likewise AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION. Appellants Felix Ventura and Arante Flores are found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength with the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, dwelling and nighttime and are SENTENCED to
the supreme penalty of DEATH.

Appellants are solidarily ORDERED to pay the heirs of Aileen Bocateja the amounts of:
(a) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; (b) One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) as actual damages; (c) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as
moral damages; and (d) Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary
damages.

Upon the finality of this Decision, and pursuant to Art. 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Sec. 25 of R.A. No. 7659, let the records of the cases be immediately
forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the exercise, at her discretion, of her
power to pardon appellants Felix Ventura and Arante Flores.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-39746 September 27, 1983 earning, without any subsidiary liability in case of insolvency, and to pay
one-third of the costs. (Expedients, pp. 49-50.)
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs. Under consideration is the appeal of Blandino from the foregoing going judgment.
BLANDINO SAN MIGUEL Y BELGAR ALIAS "EDUARDO MENDEZ Y BELGAR
PETER DOE, ALIAS "ALBERT ADIN JR.", JOHN DOE ALIAS "BALUT" accused The evidence for the prosecution as summarized by the trial court is as follows:
BLANDINO SAN MIGUEL Y BELGAR accused-appellant.
At about 6:00 o'clock on the morning of October 2, 1972, Luis Tarum was
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. sleeping under a mosquito net inside his house located at the squatter's
area at 7th Street, Broadway, Quezon City. His wife Lolita Tarum was in
Alberto B. Guevara for accused-appellant. front of the stairway. Suddenly the three defendants arrived. One of them
Junior, went up the house. He suddenly stabbed Luis Tarum and
dragged him outside the house where the two other defendants Blandino
San Miguel and "Balut" were waiting. The three defendants
ABAD SANTOS, J. simultaneously attacked Luis Tarum with a club and bladed weapons.
Blandino San Miguel stabbed Luis Tarum three times and also clubbed
him three times at the back of his neck with an iron pipe three feet long
In Criminal Case No. Q-3378 of the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal, BLANDINO
and one inch in diameter. One of the stab wounds inflicted by Blandino
SAN MIGUEL, ALBERT ADIN, JR. and JOHN DOE alias BALUT were accused of
San Miguel landed above the heart. While Blandino San Miguel was
homicide in an information which reads as follows:
clubbing Luis Tarum, Junior and Balut were also simultaneously stabbing
him. During the attack "Balut" said: "Nobody must interfere!
"That on or about the 2nd day of October, 1972, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together,
After inflicting several wounds on Luis Tarum all the defendants ran away
confederating with and mutually helping one another, did, then and there,
together. Lolita Tarum wife of Luis Tarum, brought her husband to the
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill and without any
hospital but Luis Tarum died before he arrived at the hospital; All in all
justifiable motive, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
the deceased received nine stab wounds, and abrasions and other
person of one LUIS TARUM Y BINAG by then and there stabbing him,
incised wounds found by Dr. Prospers Cabanayan, who conducted a
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which was the
post-mortem examination of the deceased (Exhibit "A"); The cause of
direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of
death was "hemorrhage, severe, secondary to stab wounds, multiple".
the heirs of said Luis Tarum y Binag, in such amount as may be awarded
(Exhibit "A-1").
to them under the provisions of the Civil Code." (Expedients, p. 1.)
At the time of his death Luis Tarum was in good health, earning P7.50 a
Only Blandino was arrested and tried. The trial court pronounced the following sentence:
day as security guard and he used to deliver every fifteen days to his wife
the amount of P115.00. (Expediente, pp. 42-43.)
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the defendant Blandino San Miguel guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and although there is
Upon the other hand, Blandino who testified alone in his defense claimed
one aggravating circumstance of treachery without any mitigating
that:
circumstance to offset the same, the Court hereby merely imposes a
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA instead of DEATH.
At about 6:00 o'clock on the morning of October 2, 1972, he (Blandino
San Miguel) went to the house of Junior to ask whether the latter would
The Court hereby further sentences the defendant Blandino San Miguel
be reporting for work. Junior did not answer but instead he went down
to pay to the heirs of the deceased P12,000.00 as indemnity for the death
from their house and went to the house of Pedring which is only a few
of Luis Tarum P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P99,360.00 as loss of
 meters away. After a while, Junior went out of the house of Pedring A At that moment the wife of Luis was shouting and she
carrying with him a bolo. After arming himself with a bolo, which he took was asking for help and for me to pacify them.
from the house of Pedring, Junior went next to the house of another
neighbor, Luis Tarum y Binag. Blandino San Miguel followed Junior but Q What did you do when you heard the wife of Luis
stayed only at the door of the house. Suddenly, Blandino San Miguel calling for help?
heard a commotion inside the house of Luis Tarum After sometime Junior
fell downstairs from the house of Luis Tarum Luis Tarum followed him A I went near them and then I called Luis, saying, that is
downstairs with a bolo in his hand. When Luis Tarum reached the ground enough, that is enough.
he boloed Junior who was not hurt because he could parry the blow.
Then Luis Tarum and Junior grappled for the bolo. While they were
Q And when you said calling the attention of Luis, that is
grappling for the possession of the bolo the wife of Luis Tarum asked
enough, that is enough, what happened next?
Blandino San Miguel to pacify them. So Blandino went near them and
called to Luis Tarum 'That is enough. That is enough.' "Apparently, Luis
was startled by the voice of Blandino San Miguel and so he began A Maybe he was a little bit surprised when I called him
attacking the latter with his bolo. Blandino was not hit because he ran because I was quite near him and he tried to strike me
and sought cover under a neighboring house where he got hold of a pipe with the bolo which he got from Junior.
and then returned to Luis Tarum When Blandino emerged from under the
house Luis Tarum again attacked Blandino with a bolo which the latter Q Were you hit when Luis Tarum struck you with the
parried After parrying the blow Blandino struck Luis Tarum with the iron bolo?
pipe. But Luis Tarum persisted in attacking Blandino who thereupon
Tarum inflicted a second blow on the neck of Luis Tarum, who thereafter A No, sir, I was able to retreat and went inside the house.
felt groggy and proceeded in a weak condition to his house. On the way
to his house "Balut", who is a brother of Junior stabbed Luis, who Q After you retreated, what did you do?
immediately fell upon receiving the stab wound. Then "Balut" picked up
Luis Tarum bolo which had fallen to the ground and gave it to Junior. A I was able to get hold of a pipe under the house.
Thereafter, "Balut" and Junior repeatedly stabbed Luis Tarum
Court:
According to Blandino San Miguel, he immediately instructed the wife of
Luis Tarum to call the police. Then he went to a Metrocom officer's house Whose house was that where you got a pipe?
to report the incident. (Expediente, pp. 43-44.)
A I do not know, sir.
The appellant admits having struck the deceased twice with an iron pipe. But he claims
that he did so in self-defense. His claim is not impressed with merit.
Q Then after that, after holding that pipe, what did you
do?
According to the appellant he started out as a peace-maker between the deceased and
Junior only to become one of the protagonists afterwards. Here is his testimony:
A I went out, sir, from under the house.
Q. [Atty. Viterbo Tagarda]
Q After going out from under the house, what happened
next?
What did you do while you saw they were grappling for
the bolo?
A He boloed me again.
 Q Were you hit? However, it will be observed that while in the information, the fiscal
designated the crime as Homicide, yet, the information alleges acts which
A No, sir, I was able to parry it. So I hit him at the head. show that the defendants took advantage of superior strength and that
the crime was committed with the aid of armed men, circumstances
. (Witness indicating). which qualify the killing into Murder.

Interpreter: xxx xxx xxx

The witness indicating the back of his head. In the opinion of the Court, the acts alleged in the information sufficiently
show that at least the defendants took advantage of superior strength.
The averment that the three accused conspired together, confederated
Q When you hit him at his head, what happened next?
with and mutually helped one another in inflicting the stab wounds
sufficiently alleges the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of
A None, sir. When I hit him on the head, after hitting him superior strength and that the killing was done with the aid of armed men.
on the head he faced me again, and struck me again. At To sufficiently allege 'abuse of superior strength,' or 'with the aid of armed
that moment I again hit him. men,' the information does not have to use the language of the statute.
Different words or phrases equally describing the same facts may be
Q Where was the second blow land when you hit him? used." (Expediente, pp. 46-47.)

A Here, at the head, sir. (Witness indicating)." (TSN, Sept. The People agree with the appellant. The People's brief submits:
25,1974, pp. 2-3.)
"The words conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping
If it is true that the deceased turned on the appellant, what the latter should have done one another' contained in the information, simply convey the allegation of
was simply to run and get away as far as possible. Instead, he got hold of a pipe, conspiracy. Otherwise, as the defense rightly argues, 'every charge of
confronted the deceased and struck him twice with the pipe. The circumstances do not conspiracy to commit homicide, would result in a charge of murder'.
paint a picture of self-defense. There should be some other allegation in the information showing that
the accused did take advantage of superior strength and/or with the aid
Upon the other hand, the trial court said "after considering all the facts and the of armed men." (Brief, p. 9.)
circumstances of the case, as well as the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial, [the
court] is more inclined to accept the version of Lolita Tarum who was the lone witness for The common opinion of the appellant and the appellee has jurisprudential support
the prosecution." We have no reason to disturb this factual finding of the court a in People vs. Bautista, L-23303, May 20, 1969, 28 SCRA 184, which held that if the
quo which was in a better position to appreciate the credibility of witnesses. circumstance of abuse of superior strength is not alleged in the information, it may only
be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in the imposition of the
The appellant was charged with homicide only but the trial court adjudged him guilty of corresponding penalty. (See also People vs. Jovellano, L-32421, March 27, 1974, 56
murder. The appellant complains with justification that the trial court treated him harshly. SCRA 156.)

The trial court rationalized its action as follows: The trial court did not err when it concluded that there was abuse of superiority. For as
the People say:
The legal question is: What crime has been committed? While treachery
obviously attended the commission of the offense, it can be taken into Considering that three assailants, all armed with bladed weapons,
account only as a generic aggravating circumstance because it is not simultaneously and repeatedly stabbed and clubbed the defenseless
alleged in the information.
 victim, the killing was thereby attended by the aggravating circumstances
of abuse of superior strength and with the aid of armed men. (Brief, p. 8.)

Neither did the trial court err in awarding damages. The indemnity of P12,000.00 is
jurisprudential; the award of P10,000.00 as moral damages is justified by the Civil Code;
and the award of P99,360.00 for loss of earnings was arrived as follows:

With respect to the civil liability, it appears that at the time of the death of
Luis Tarum he was 25 years old, and that he used to turn over to his wife
the amount of P115.00 every fifteen days or P230.00 a month. Had Luis
Tarum not been killed by the defendants, his remaining life expectancy is
computed by the following formula: 2/3 (80 minus 25, which is the age of
the deceased at the time of his death), which gives 36 years as the
remaining life expectancy of the deceased. Thus, by his untimely death,
his family lost an expected earning in the amount of P99,360.00 (Villa-
Rey vs. Court of Appeals, L-25499, February 18,1970). (Expediente, p.
49.)

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is modified in that the appellant shall be
convicted for the crime of homicide only and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
eight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. The appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Costs
against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 That on or about the 29th day of July, 1987, in the Municipality of Sagay,
Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Honorable Court, the first two (2) above-named accused, in company of their two
vs. (2) other co-accused, namely: Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo, who are both
JOSELITO ESCARDA, JOSE VILLACASTIN JR., HERNANI ALEGRE, and RODOLFO still-at-large, conspiring, confederating and mutually help[ing] one another, with
CAÑEDO, accused, intent of gain, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal
JOSE VILLACASTIN, JR., accused-appellant. and carry away two (2) female carabaos, valued in the total amount of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to JOEL
QUISUMBING, J.: BARIESES, without the consent of the latter, to the damage and prejudice of the
said owner in the aforestated amount.
On appeal is the decision dated September 21, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of
Cadiz City, Branch 60, in Criminal Case No. 586-S, finding accused Joselito Escarda and CONTRARY TO LAW.2
Jose Villacastin Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling
Law. In its decision, the trial court decreed: Upon arraignment, accused Escarda and Villacastin, assisted by counsel, entered a plea
of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds both
accused JOSELITO ESCARDA and JOSE VILLACASTIN, JR., guilty beyond The facts as presented by the prosecution and summarized by the trial court are as
reasonable doubt of the crime of "Viol. of P.D. 533" (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law), follows:
and there being the presence of three generic aggravating circumstances of
[r]ecidivism, nighttime and unlawful entry, with no mitigating circumstances to [Dionesio Himaya] testified that on July 29, 1987 at about 2:00 o'clock in the
offset the same, as such, the accused are each sentenced to suffer, considering morning in [Hacienda] Ricky, Jose Villacastin, Jr. and his group passed by his
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imprisonment of EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, house. [He] was still awake at that time because he was watching over his
EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (I) DAY as the minimum to RECLUSION cornfield and while doing so, he saw the two accused remove the cyclone wire
PERPETUA as the maximum, together with all the accessory penalties imposed which was used as the corral for the two (2) carabaos of Rosalina Plaza. He was
by law and to indemnify the offended party, Joel Barrieses, in the amount of able to see Jose Villacastin, Jr. cut the cyclone wire because he was just four (4)
P5,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. arms length away from them and after Jose Villacastin cut the wire, they swept it
aside and untied the two (2) carabaos. After untying the carabaos, they rode on it
The accused being detained, are hereby entitled to the full credit of their and proceeded to the canefields. [He] saw two (2) persons riding on the carabao
preventive imprisonment as provided for under R.A. 6127. whom he identified as Jose Villacastin, Jr. together with Joselito Escarda. He
awakened Rosalina Plaza who thereafter went to Joel Barrieses, owner of the
Costs against both accused. carabaos, to inform the latter that his carabaos were stolen.

SO ORDERED.1 [Rosalina Plaza] testified that on July 29, 1987 at about 2:00 o'clock in the
morning, in the residence of Joel Barrieses, Dionesio Himaya called her and
informed her that the carabaos were stolen and when asked who stole the
In an information dated April 18, 1988, Provincial Fiscal Othello Villanueva charged
carabaos, Dionesio Himaya only mentioned Jose Villacastin, Jr. Before the
accused with violation of Presidential Decree No. 533, otherwise known as Anti-Cattle
incident of July 29, 1987, she already knew the person of Jose Villacastin, Jr.,
Rustling Law of 1974, as follows:
because the latter always passed by their house. After she was informed of the
stealing of the carabaos, she went to the corral to check whether the carabaos
The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses JOSELITO ESCARDA, JOSE were there but discovered that the beasts were no longer there and the cyclone
VILLACASTIN, JR., HERNANI ALEGRE (at-large) and RODOLFO CAÑEDO (at- wire was destroyed. She informed Joel Barrieses, that Jose Villacastin, Jr., stole
large) of the crime of Violation of Presidential Decree No. 533, (Anti-Cattle the carabaos and she went to the 334th PC Company and reported the incident.3
Rustling Law of 1974), committed as follows:
In their defense, Escarda and Villacastin denied the charges. Escarda claimed that he PC elements wanted them to admit it. He denied what they were accusing him of
was sleeping in the house of Gilda Labrador during the incident while Villacastin declared because he has not committed the crime. He does not know of anybody by the
that he too was sleeping in his house at that time.4 The defense version of the incident name of Joel Barrieses. When he denied the commission of the crime, he was
was summarized by the trial court as follows: maltreated and was forced to admit it and to make a confession. They were
detained for about a month at the 334th PC Headquarters and they were
. . . Joselito Escarda testified that he did not know his co-accused in this case, transferred to the Municipal Jail of Sagay, Negros Occidental and there was no
specifically, Jose Villacastin, Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cahedo. Neither did he lawyer present during his refusal to admit the stealing of the carabaos.5
know of somebody by the name of Dionesio Himaya although he knew
somebody by the name of Gilda Labrador. In the early morning of July 29, 1987, The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible, while it
he was working as cane cutter and hauler in the hacienda of Javelosa located in disbelieved the defense of denial and alibi of accused Escarda and Villacastin. They
Barrio Malubon, Sagay, Negros Occidental which is fifteen (15) kilometers away were found guilty as charged. However, the charge against accused Rodolfo Cañedo
from the house of his mother where he was residing. On July 29, 1987, he was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Earlier, the charge against co-accused
started working at 8:00 o'clock in the morning and ended at 11:00. After he Hernani Alegre was dismissed on motion by the prosecution, for lack of evidence.
finished working in the field, he went to the house of his mother where he ate
lunch and rested until 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. In the evening of July 29, Insisting on their innocence, Escarda and Villacastin filed their notice of appeal. In their
1987, he slept at the house of Gilda Labrador starting at 7:00 o'clock in the assignment of error, they alleged that the trial court erred in convicting them of the crime
evening and woke up at 6:00 o'clock in the morning of July 30, 1987. Sometime charged.6
on August 29, 1987, he left alone for the dance hall located at Hda. Ricky to
attend a dance held there because there was a fiesta at that time. While he was On November 27, 1995, we required the trial court to order the commitment of Escarda
at the dance hall, he was arrested by the PC elements and brought to the 334th and Villacastin to the Bureau of Corrections or the nearest national penal institution.
PC Company where he was maltreated. He was asked whether or not he stole However, Executive Judge Renato Munez requested that their commitment to the
the carabaos at Hda. Ricky but he denied the commission of the crime and Bureau of Corrections be deferred until the termination of the other criminal case7 against
again, he was maltreated. He suffered injuries when they maltreated him so he them pending before the said trial court. Further, Captain Eduardo Legaspi, Acting
made a confession before them but did not sign the same. His injuries were not Provincial Warden of Negros Occidental, also requested to hold in abeyance the
treated by a physician because the PC would not let him go out of the jail, so, his commitment of Escarda and Villacastin in view of their pending criminal cases before the
injuries healed while he was in jail. He did not know the names of the PC who Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City.8 Accordingly, we granted the aforesaid request for
maltreated him and forced him to admit the loss of the carabaos at Hda. Ricky deferment.9 On August 12, 1998, they were eventually committed to the New Bilibid
because the maltreatment happened in the evening. Furthermore, he did not Prison, Muntinlupa City.10
know the complainant in this case, i.e. Joel Barrieses.
On October 12, 1998, Escarda sought the approval of this Court to withdraw his
xxx xxx xxx appeal.11 We required the Director of the New Bilibid Prison to confirm the voluntariness
of said withdrawal.12 In his certification dated July 15, 1999, Atty. Roberto Sangalang,
[Jose Villacastin, Jr. testified] that on or before July 29, 1987, he did not know the who personally examined Escarda, attested that Escarda executed his urgent motion to
accused Joselito Escarda, Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo because in the withdraw appeal on his own free will and fully understood the consequences of the same.
early morning of July 29, 1987, at more or less 2:00 o'clock to 3:00 o'clock, he On August 9, 1 999, we granted Escarda's motion to withdraw appeal.13
had not gone with Joselito Escarda, Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo
because he was sleeping in his house which is located in Sitio Candiis. He Accordingly, we are now concerned only with the appeal of the remaining appellant, Jose
started sleeping at 8:00 o'clock in the evening of July 28, 1987 and woke up the Villacastin, Jr. In his brief, he assigns only one error:
next day, July 29, 1987 at 7:00 in the morning. On August 29, 1987 at 10:00
o'clock in the evening, he was attending a dance at Hda. Ricky and while
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF
watching the dance, he was arrested and brought to the 334th PC Headquarters
THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
in Tan-ao, Sagay, Negros Occidental. When they arrived at the PC
Headquarters, they were investigated about the stealing of the carabaos and the
Appellant contends that the element of "taking away of carabaos by any means, method carabaos were stolen and reported the incident to the police. Note that the ownership
or scheme without the consent of the owner" was not proven by the prosecution. He also was never put in issue during the trial in the lower court and is now raised belatedly. It is
alleges that his identity was not established beyond reasonable doubt, thus, he should settled that, generally, questions not raised in the trial court will not be considered on
be acquitted. He adds that the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the stolen appeal.18
carabaos by presenting the certificate of ownership,14 as required by the Anti-Cattle
Rustling Law. Appellant's alibi must likewise fail. He insists that he was sleeping in his house at the
time the crime occurred. He slept at 8:00 P.M., July 28, 1987 and woke up the next day,
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent July 29, 1987 at 7:00 A.M. As the trial court noted, it is difficult to believe appellant's
of the owner or raiser of cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member claim that he slept for eleven hours straight just like Escarda. Besides, the rule is settled
of the bovine family, whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or that alibi cannot prosper unless it is proven that during the commission of the crime, the
without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. Cattle rustling accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the place where the crime was committed.19 In this case, appellant failed to demonstrate
owner or raiser.15 satisfactorily that it was physically impossible for him to be in the crime scene at the time
of the incident. Admittedly, the scene of the crime was only a fifteen-minute walk from
In this case, the overt act which gives rise to the crime of cattle rustling is the taking appellant's house.
away of the carabaos by the accused without the consent of the caretaker. Dionisio
Himaya testified that he saw appellant cut the cyclone wire used as corral for the We note that the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
carabaos. Afterwards, appellant untied the two carabaos. Then, appellant rode on one unlawful entry and recidivism, without any mitigating circumstance. The prosecution,
carabao while co-accused Escarda rode on the other and immediately proceeded to the however, failed to specify these circumstances in the charge filed before the trial court,
canefield.16 The taking was confirmed by Rosalina Plaza, the caretaker of the carabaos, as now required expressly by the Code of Criminal Procedure effective December 1,
who declared that after she was informed by Himaya about the incident, she went right 2000 but applicable retroactively for being procedural and pro reo.20
away to the corral and discovered that indeed the two carabaos were missing.
Moreover, we find that the trial court also erred in appreciating the aggravating
Appellant's assertion that his identity was not positively established deserves no serious circumstance of recidivism. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
consideration. Prosecution witness Dionisio Himaya identified appellant and Escarda as shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
the rustlers. In his testimony, Himaya said he was awake at that time as he was watching same title of the Code. In its decision, the trial court merely mentioned that appellant was
over his cornfield nearby, and there was enough illumination from the moon.17 He was convicted for cattle rustling under Criminal Case No. 627-S on February 8, 1993, at the
just four arm's length away. He saw appellant and Escarda unleash the two carabaos. time when the case at bar was being tried. It did not state that said conviction was
He stated that appellant rode on one carabao while Escarda rode on the other, and both already final. Even the records did not show that appellant admitted his previous
immediately went away. He said he easily recognized appellant as he knew him long conviction. As we had held before, there can be no recidivism without final
before the incident. According to the witness, appellant was the nephew of his wife and judgment.21 The best evidence of a prior conviction is a certified copy of the original
used to visit them before. During the trial, the witness positively identified appellant as judgment of conviction, and such evidence is always admissible and conclusive unless
the same person who stole the carabaos. Appellant's contention concerning lack of the accused himself denies his identity with the person convicted at the former trial.22
proper identification is, in our view, baseless and unmeritorious.
P.D. 533 does not supersede the crime of qualified theft of large cattle under Articles
Similarly, appellant's assertion, that the prosecution should have first presented the 30923 and 31024 under the Revised Penal Code. It merely modified the penalties provided
certificate of ownership of the stolen carabaos to warrant his conviction, is untenable. It is for qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 by imposing stiffer penalties thereon
to be noted that the gravamen in the crime of cattle-rustling is the "taking" or "killing" of under special circumstances.25 Under Section 826 of P.D. 533, any person convicted of
large cattle or "taking" its meat or hide without the consent of the owner. The "owner" cattle rustling shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved, be punished
includes the herdsman, caretaker, employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the
the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such large cattle. In offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
this case Rosalina Plaza, the caretaker of the carabaos, did not consent to the taking things. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or
away of the carabaos. She immediately informed Joel Barrieses, the owner, that the
force upon things, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed.

In the instant case, the offense was committed with force upon things as the perpetrators
had to cut through the cyclone wire fence to gain entrance into the corral and take away
the two carabaos therefrom. Accordingly, the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the penalty imposable on appellant is only prision mayor in its maximum
period as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum. Thus, it is
proper to impose on appellant only the indefinite prison term of ten (10) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and twenty-
one (21) days of reclusion temporal as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September 21, 1994, of the Regional Trial
Court of Cadiz City, Branch 60, in Criminal Case No. 586-S, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant Jose Villacastin, Jr., is declared guilty of violating the Anti-
Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten
(10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to fourteen (14) years, ten (10)
months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal as maximum; and to indemnify
offended party Joel Barrieses the amount of P5,000, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO NABUAL, LUIS preventing the imposition of the death penalty, by establishing one mitigating circumstance in
NABUAL, and ELPIDIO BACHICHA, Defendants-Appellants. their favor. Had a plea of not guilty been entered, there was a great likelihood that the
following aggravating circumstances would have been established, namely: (1) nighttime;(2)
Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and dwelling; (3) abuse of superior strength; (4) evident premeditation; and (5) as regard Luis
Solicitor Hector C. Fule for Plaintiff-Appellee. Nabual and Demetrio Nabual, reiteration. With no mitigating circumstance to offset any of
these aggravating circumstances — in the absence of a plea of guilty — defendants’ chances
Zaida Ruby S. Alberto and Guido A. Lavin, Jr., for Defendants-Appellants. of avoiding the extreme penalty were nil. Hence, they had no choice but to enter said plea.

SYLLABUS
DECISION

1. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

CONSIDERED IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the defendants admit the allegation in the PER CURIAM:
information that the "accused conspiring, confederating together and helping one another . . .
armed with guns and a knife . . . with intent to kill . . . willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter
the house" of the offended parties and steal the aggregate sum of P535, and "pursuant to
their conspiracy, . . . did . . . stab several times . . . Pablo Ocenada . . . with said knife with This case is before Us on automatic review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of
which said accused had conveniently provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting Samar, convicting defendants Demetrio Nabual, Luis Nabual and Elpidio Bachicha, of the
upon said Pablo Ocenada several wounds. . . which . . . caused his death," evident crime of robbery with homicide, under an information alleging:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
premeditation to kill should be considered to have aggravated the commission of the crime.
"That on or about the 7th day of January, 1967, in the Municipality of Calbiga, Province of
2. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN INSTANT CASE NOT OFFSET BY PLEA OF Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
GUILTY. — Independently of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and reiteration, accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another with one Cresencio
evident premeditation, dwelling, and abuse of superior strength were considered present at Mabute who is still at large, armed with guns and a knife, with intent to kill and to gain, by
the commission of the offense. Defendants’ plea of guilty is insufficient to offset these three means of force, violence against and intimidation of persons, and at nighttime, did then and
aggravating circumstances and the extreme penalty was properly meted out by the trial court there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of one Carlota P. Ocenada, and
to Luis Nabual and Elpidio Bachicha. once inside thereat, pointed their guns at said Carlota P. Ocenada and demanded money
from her and because of fear that she might be killed, said Carlota P. Ocenada handed said
3. ID.; ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES; CONSIDERATION THEREOF BY THE COURT. — accused money in cash which was placed inside their trunk, amounting to One Hundred
Some aggravating circumstances are graver than others. Indeed, the same aggravating Thirty Five (P135.00) Pesos, and accused forcibly opened the suitcase and got another
circumstance may connote a greater degree of malice or perversity in one case than in money in cash amounting to Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos, which the said accused took,
another. Conversely, the same mitigating circumstance may merit more weight in one case stole and carried away with them, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the total
than in another, depending upon the conditions surrounding each. In the very nature of sum of Five Hundred Thirty Five (P535.00) Pesos, Philippine currency; and accused,
things, judges must exercise their sound judgment in the appraisal thereof. pursuant to their conspiracy and on such occasion thereof and for the purpose of enabling
them to take, steal and carry away with them said amount of money, did then and there
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSTANT CASE. — In the present case, the defendants had planned not willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab several times one Pablo
only the robbery. They had entered the house of their victims with the intent to kill. For this Ocenada, husband of said Carlota P. Ocenada with said knife with which the said accused
purpose, they had armed themselves with deadly weapons. This, notwithstanding the fact had conveniently provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said Pablo
that they had been previously convicted of and sentenced for murder. Even if the legal Ocenada several wounds on the different parts of his body which wounds caused his death.
feasibility of considering such conviction and sentence as sufficient to establish the
aggravating circumstance of reiteration may be debatable, said fact is undoubtedly indicative "That in the commission of the crime the following aggravating circumstances were present:
of the marked moral perversion of the defendants and of the grave danger they pose to (1) Nighttime; (2) the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, the latter not
society. There is every reason to believe that the plea of guilty entered into by them was having been giving provocation for it; (3) habituality or reiteration, they having been convicted
prompted, not by a feeling of regret or remorse and a willingness to pay their debt to society, on September 5, 1962 in the Court of First Instance of Branch I, Catbalogan, Samar, for
but by a desire to avail of the only means to create a possibility, no matter how remote, of murder, in Criminal Case No. 6074, and was sentenced to imprisonment from 4 years and 2
months of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor, with accessory penalties provided "COURT
by law and indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Loreto Cabrillas and pay the costs; as
to accused Luis Nabual and Demetrio Nabual; (4) evident premeditation; (5) taking Arraign the accused.
advantage of superior strength in number and arms."cralaw virtua1aw library
"INTERPRETER
When the case was called for arraignment, counsel de oficio for the defendants informed said
Court of their intention to enter a plea of guilty, whereupon His Honor, the trial Judge, (Reading the information to the three accused).
propounded to them the questions and the defendants gave the answers quoted
hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library "INTERPRETER

COURT (To the three accused) "Q Did you understand what was read to you? (Interpreter asking the same question to the
three accused)
"Q Your lawyer has manifested to this court that you desire to enter the plea of guilty to the
offenses charged. Do you agree to that manifestation of your lawyer? "A Yes, sir (all the three accused).

"A Yes, sir (all the three accused). "Q What is your plea Demetrio Nabual?

"Q Do you know that by so agreeing to that manifestation of your lawyer you will be admitting "A Guilty.
the commission of the crime charging you with robbery with homicide?
"Q What is your plea Luis Nabual?
"A Yes, sir (all the three accused).
"A Guilty.
"Q And for which this court will sentence you to death or of imprisonment for which length of
time that it will determine? "Q What is your plea Elpidio Bachicha?

"A Yes, sir (all the three accused). "A Guilty.

"Q And, notwithstanding what was explained to you still insist your desire to enter the plea of "COURT
guilty to the offense charged?
"Q Why did you enter the plea of guilty to the crime charged?
"A Yes, sir (all the three accused).
"A I pleaded guilty because I have done it. (All the three accused). answering one by
"Q The court would like to inform you again that this robbery with homicide is punishable one)."cralaw virtua1aw library
with reclusion perpetua with death?
Thereupon, the trial court rendered judgment finding the defendants guilty of robbery with
"A Yes, sir (all the three accused). homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, evident premeditation
and abuse of superior strength, in addition, insofar as Luis Nabual and Demetrio Nabual are
"Q And there is a likelihood that you might be sentenced to death? concerned, to the aggravating circumstance of reiteration, with no mitigating circumstance in
favor of any of said defendants except that of plea of guilty, which is, however, insufficient to
"A Yes, sir (all the three accused). offset all of the aforementioned aggravating circumstances, and, accordingly, sentenced
them to death, to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Pablo Ocenada in the sums of
"Q And, notwithstanding what is explained to you by the court you still insist in your desire to P6,000.00 and P535, which latter sum represents the amount stolen, and to pay the costs.
enter the plea of guilty? Hence, the present automatic review.

"A Yes, sir (all the three accused). During the pendency thereof, or on December 24, 1968, Demetrio Nabual died in
consequence of injuries sustained when prison guards fired at him, as he, together with other
prisoners, tried to escape from the New Bilibid Prisons, where he was undergoing preventive intent to kill . . . did . . . willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house" of the offended
imprisonment. By resolution of this Court, dated February 21, 1969, the case against him parties and steal the aggregate sum of P535, and "pursuant to their conspiracy, . . . did . . .
was, therefore, dismissed, so that the present decision refers exclusively to defendants Luis stab several times . . . Pablo Ocenada . . . with said knife with which said accused had
Nabual and Elpidio Bachicha. conveniently provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said Pablo
Ocenada several wounds . . . which . . . caused his death." This allegation was admitted by
Conceding the propriety of the judgment of conviction against these defendants, their counsel the defendants, who acted, therefore, with evident premeditation to kill.
de oficio maintains 1 that the lower court erred in considering that the crime charged was
committed with the aggravating circumstances of reiteration, nighttime and evident Independently, therefore, of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and reiteration,
premeditation; that the commission of said crime was attended by no other aggravating evident premeditation, dwelling, and abuse of superior strength should be considered present
circumstances than those of dwelling and abuse of superior strength; that these two (2) at the commission of the offense. In the light of the conditions obtaining in the present case,
aggravating circumstances should be deemed offset by the plea of guilty entered by the we believe that defendants’ plea of guilty is insufficient to offset these three aggravating
defendants, so that they should be sentenced merely to life imprisonment; and that said circumstances, and that the extreme penalty was properly meted out to Luis Nabual and
judgment should be modified accordingly. Elpidio Bachicha.

As regards the aggravating circumstances of reiteration and nighttime, it is urged that, We have not overlooked the fact that, in People v. Apduhan, 4 we refrained from imposing
according to the information, the defendants had been previously "convicted" of the crime of the extreme penalty, for lack of the number of votes necessary therefor, despite the existence
murder and "sentenced" therefor; that there is no allegation that they had served the of three aggravating circumstances as against the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
sentence; that actual punishment or service of the sentence is essential to the aggravating Such case should not be construed, however, as implying that this mitigating circumstance
circumstance of reiteration, 2 unlike recidivism, for which previous conviction of a crime falling has as much weight as three aggravating circumstances, whatever the latter may be.
under the same title of the penal code is sufficient; and that the information fails to aver that Obviously, some aggravating circumstances are graver than others. Indeed, the same
nighttime had been purposely or especially sought or that the defendants had taken aggravating circumstance may connote a greater degree of malice or perversity in one case
advantage thereof in order either to facilitate the commission of the offense or to afford them than in another. Conversely, the same mitigating circumstance may merit more weight in one
impunity. We deem it unnecessary, however, to discuss these aggravating circumstances, case than in another, depending upon the conditions surrounding each. In the very nature of
because even if we discarded them, the result would be the same. things, judges must exercise their sound judgment in the appraisal thereof.

Indeed, appellants affirm that evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery and In the present case, the defendants had planned not only the robbery. They had entered the
that robbery with homicide is essentially a crime against property. It is true that in the case of house of their victims with the intent to kill. For this purpose, they had armed themselves with
People v. Valeriano, 3 which was one of robbery with homicide, it was held deadly weapons. This, notwithstanding the fact that they had been previously convicted of
that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph and sentenced for murder. Even if the legal feasibility of considering such conviction and
sentence as sufficient to establish the aggravating circumstance of reiteration may be
"Evident premeditation is not considered as an aggravating circumstance in crimes of robbery debatable, said fact is undoubtedly indicative of the marked moral perversion of the
because the same is inherent in the crime specially where it is committed by various persons; defendants and of the grave danger they pose to society.
they must have an agreement, they have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying
out the crime and they have to act coordinately in order to succeed . . ."cralaw virtua1aw Then, again, there is every reason to believe that the plea of guilty entered into by them was
library prompted, not by a feeling of regret or remorse and a willingness to pay their debt to society,
but by a desire to avail of the only means to create a possibility, no matter how remote, of
However, in the same case, this Court added:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph preventing the imposition of the death penalty, by establishing one mitigating circumstance in
their favor. This assertion is based upon the fact that otherwise the prosecution would have,
". . . But in the name of robbery with homicide, if there is evident premeditation to kill besides in all probability, proven that nighttime had been purposely sought or taken advantage of, and
stealing, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance . . . In the instant case, it has been that the defendants had not only been convicted of and sentenced for murder, but, also,
proven that the accused, on various occasions before committing the crime, planned and served the sentence therefor. In fact, the lower court found — upon informal examination of
decided not only to steal but also to kill Judge Bautista. Hence, there is present evident the documents that the prosecution intended to introduce in evidence, had the defendants
premeditation."cralaw virtua1aw library chosen to proceed to trial — that Luis Nabual and Demetrio Nabual were parolees, so that
they must have served part of their aforementioned sentence. In short, had a plea of not
Similarly, in the case at bar, the information explicitly alleges that the "accused conspiring, guilty been entered, there was a great likelihood that the following aggravating circumstances
confederating together and helping one another . . . armed with guns and a knife . . . with would have been established, namely: (1) nighttime; (2) dwelling; (3) abuse of superior
strength; (4) evident premeditation; and (5) as regards Luis Nabual and Demetrio Nabual,
reiteration. With no mitigating circumstance to offset any of these aggravating circumstances
— in the absence of a plea of guilty — defendants’ chances of avoiding the extreme penalty
were nil. Hence, they had no choice but to enter said plea.

WHEREFORE, modified as to the indemnity of P6,000 00 which is hereby increased to

P12,000.00, 5 in addition to the stolen sum of P535, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, in all other respects, with costs against defendants Luis Nabual and Elpidio
Bachicha. It is so ordered.