G.R. No.

229829, January 22, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL KALIPAYAN

Y ANIANO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

GESMUNDO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated July 29, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals-Visayas Station (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 01962.
The CA affirmed with modification the Judgment2 dated November 26, 2014
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 34, finding
accused-appellant Arnel Kalipayan y Aniano (accused-appellant) guilty of
murder.

The Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of murder under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The accusatory portion of the information
reads:

Criminal Case No. 2008-06-323

That on or about the 25th day of June 2008 in the City of Tacloban and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused with intent
to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength
did then and there wilfully [sic] and feloniously stab several times Glaiza
Molina, his former live-in partner inside her house with the use of bladed
knife hitting different parts of the latter's body causing her some injuries
thereon resulting to her instantaneous death.

Said act is attended with the aggravating circumstance of "dwelling."

Contrary to law.3

On September 10, 2008, accused-appellant was arraigned and he pleaded

not guilty to the charge.4 Thereafter, trial ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

Prosecution witnesses testified that Glaiza Molina (Glaiza) and accused-

appellant were lovers and they have a child. They lived with Glaiza's
grandmother Celestina Molina (Celestina) for some time. Their living
arrangements changed throughout the years until it was agreed that Glaiza,
together with the couple's daughter, would live with Celestina so that Glaiza
can continue her studies. Glaiza and accused-appellant's relationship took a
negative turn with the incident that occurred on June 25, 2008.5

Josephine Paraiso (Josephine), Glaiza's mother, testified that on June 25,

2008, at around 5:45 p.m., she was watching television inside their house
while Celestina and Glaiza were in the kitchen preparing their dinner.
Accused-appellant entered their house without permission, approached
Glaiza, stabbed her in the back and held her hair. Accused-appellant then
made Glaiza face him and continued stabbing her in the abdomen. Josephine
tried to stop accused-appellant but the latter poked the knife at her, telling
her not to interfere as it was none of her business. Josephine then ran
outside the house and asked for help. A neighbor, Dennis Alegre, tried to
stop accused-appellant but the latter was undeterred, even when Josephine
was begging him to stop. Josephine decided to leave the house while
accused-appellant escaped. With accused-appellant gone, Josephine went
back inside their house, where she found Glaiza still breathing. Glaiza was
brought to Remedios Trinidad Romualdez Medical Foundation Hospital where
she was declared dead on arrival.

On cross examination, she testified that accused-appellant entered the

house through the main door. Glaiza was about to put the pot on the stove
with her back facing accused-appellant when the latter stabbed her using a 9
½ inch long Rambo knife, which they did not have in their kitchen. She
likewise said that accused-appellant and Glaiza did not have a conversation
immediately prior to the incident.

Celestina testified that she was in the kitchen with Glaiza while the latter
was trying to cook rice. Celestina was doing something to the gas tank when
accused-appellant suddenly entered the house and stabbed Glaiza. The latter
fell to the ground but accused-appellant continued stabbing her. Celestina
then went out of the house to seek help and she was prevented by their
neighbors to go back inside.

SPO2 Marion Lavadia testified that he was the policeman on duty and he
received the phone call about the stabbing incident. Celestina met the police
who responded to the incident and informed them that Glaiza was stabbed
several times. They later discovered that accused-appellant could be
somewhere in V&G Subdivision in Tacloban City. When they saw accused-
appellant, Josephine confirmed that he was the one that stabbed Glaiza. The
police arrested accused-appellant and frisked him, which resulted in the
discovery of the knife used against Glaiza.

The Medico-Legal Autopsy Report6 stated that the victim Glaiza

Molina (Glaiza) suffered one (1) puncture wound on her head, eight (8) stab
wounds and one (1) puncture wound on her chest, one (1) stab wound on
her abdomen, two (2) incise wounds, and three (3) stab wounds on her
extremities.7

Evidence for the Defense

Accused-appellant presented a different account of the incident. He claimed

that he confronted Glaiza because he believes that the latter was having an
affair with another man and the situation hurt him. Accused-appellant and
Glaiza then went to the balcony of the house near the kitchen, where they
ended up arguing and shouting. Glaiza was angry at him, and thereafter
went to the kitchen, and he followed her. Accused-appellant took a knife
from the sink and threatened Glaiza, causing the latter to slap him. Accused-
appellant then lost control and started stabbing Glaiza, and he could not
remember the number of times he stabbed her. He could also not recall
what happened until he surrendered when the police saw him at V&G
Subdivision.

On cross-examination, accused-appellant stated that he had no intention of

hurting Glaiza; instead he wanted to mend their relationship. Glaiza,
however, was cold to him. He insisted that he was not armed when he went
to Glaiza and he only found the knife inside the house.

The RTC Ruling

In the judgment dated November 26, 2014, the RTC found accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime of murder.
On the matter of the circumstance of abuse of superior strength, it noted
that Glaiza was unarmed and stabbed numerous times and it showed that
accused-appellant abused his superior strength and demonstrated his
brutality. Nevertheless, the RTC opined that this circumstance is absorbed in
treachery which was also present in this case. Treachery was proven by the
clear and credible testimony of Celestina. The trial court observed that due
to the suddenness of the attack, Glaiza was unable to defend herself and
repel the attack. On the subject of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance,
the RTC stated that there is no evidence showing that the crime was
deliberately and purposely intended to be inside Glaiza's house and to cause
disrespect to the sanctity of the dwelling.

It held, however, that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not
sufficiently show that the killing was attended by evident premeditation. As
pointed out by the court, though accused-appellant planned to confront
Glaiza, it was not tantamount to planning to kill Glaiza. The RTC concluded
that there was no direct or circumstantial proof demonstrated by the
prosecution to show that accused-appellant meditated and reflected on
committing murder. The dispositive portion of the RTC ruling states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein accused ARNEL KALIPAYAN y

Aniano is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
MURDER and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.

Accused Arnel Kalipayan is hereby ordered to indemnify Josephine Paraiso,

the mother of the victim, the amount of Php75,000.00 as moral damages,
the heirs of Glaiza Molina Php75,000.00 as death indemnity, Php30,000.00
for funeral expenses and Php 25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The herein accused Arnel Kalipayan shall be credited the period of his
detention during the pendency of this case in accordance with existing laws
and procedures.

COSTS against the accused

SO ORDERED.8

Accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its decision dated July 29, 2016, the CA denied the appeal. It held that
there was suddenness in the attack, as gathered from the testimonies of the
prosecution, when accused-appellant swiftly appeared inside Glaiza's house
and attacked her. The numerous stab wounds found on Glaiza's body,
delivered in a sudden manner, negates the claim that Glaiza might have
defended herself. The CA likewise agreed with the RTC that there was the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength but the same is
absorbed in the circumstance of treachery.

The CA sustained the grant of civil indemnity and moral damages of

P75,000.00, and the award of P30,000.00 for funeral expenses and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The monetary award was, however,
modified by adding an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the
aggregate amount of the monetary awards, computed from the time of
finality of the decision until its full payment. The CA disposed the appeal in
this wise:

WHEREFORE, this appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 26 November

2014 of Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in Crim. Case
No. 2008-06-323 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant shall pay an
interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the aggregate amount of the
monetary awards computed from the time of finality of this Decision until full
payment.

SO ORDERED.9

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT

OF MURDER DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH
ANY QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE.

The records of this case were forwarded by the CA pursuant to its

Resolution10 dated October 26, 2016, which gave due course to the notice of
appeal. The Court required the parties to submit their respective
supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing
the appellee People of the Philippines, filed a Manifestation11 stating it will
not file a Supplemental Brief to avoid a repetition of arguments already
presented in its Appellee's Brief dated January 29, 2016. Appellant likewise
filed a Manifestation in lieu of a Supplemental Brief[12 adopting in toto the
Appellant's Brief filed before the CA.

Arguments of accused-appellant

Accused-appellant admits that he committed the acts that eventually led to

Glaiza's death. However, he argues that the qualifying circumstances alleged
in the information were not sufficiently proven by the prosecution. Accused-
appellant points to the nature of the attack against Glaiza, which he
characterizes as not sudden and unexpected. He claims that there was a
commotion and a heated argument prior to the killing, which would have
allowed Glaiza to raise her guard. The weapon used was also found in
Glaiza's residence showing that the means of execution was only adopted as
a result of an impulse prior to the killing. Thus, accused-appellant argues
that there was no treachery proven.
Accused-appellant likewise posits that the presence of evident premeditation
is not backed by evidence, which was acknowledged by the RTC. There was
no proof that accused-appellant decided to kill the victim and that there was
time for him to reflect upon his decision.

Finally, accused-appellant reiterates abuse of superior strength was also not

present. He insists that the prosecution failed to show the disparity in age,
size and strength, or force, except for the gender of the parties. Further,
there appeared no actual difference between the body types of accused-
appellant and Glaiza that will constitute superior strength on his part.

Accused-appellant concludes that these circumstances negate the

suddenness of the attack, the deliberateness or conscious adoption of the
method of killing, and the existence of treachery. Hence, he underscores
that his conviction should only be for the crime of homicide.

Arguments of appellee

Contrary to the protestations of appellant, the OSG claims that the presence
of a prior heated argument is untrue based on the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. Both Josephine and Celestina were actually surprised
of his presence in their house. The OSG also highlights that the testimonies
show that Glaiza was held by the hair and was stabbed in the back,
rendering the latter incapable of defending herself. Not only was Glaiza
unaware of accused-appellant's presence, she was also caught unaware of
his impending attack on her.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is unmeritorious.

It is a hornbook rule that an appeal of a criminal case throws the entire case
up for review. It becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct any error
that may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error
or not.13 Bound by this doctrine, this Court will thus review not just the
propriety of appellant's conviction, but likewise the penalty and monetary
award given to the heirs of the victim.

The elements of murder were proven

beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution
Accused-appellant is charged with the murder of his former girlfriend who
also happened to be the mother of his child. Art. 248 of the RPC states:

Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246
shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished
by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any
of the following attendant circumstances:

5. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means
or persons to insure or afford impunity.

XXX

5. With evident premeditation.

XXX

Jurisprudence dictates that the elements of murder are as follows: (a) that a
person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248;
and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.14

There is no need to dwell on the first two (2) elements. Accused-appellant

admitted that he indeed stabbed Glaiza which resulted to the latter's death.
The last element also exists as Glaiza and accused-appellant were only in a
boyfriend-girlfriend relationship at the time of the crime, albeit with a
common child, but no relationship that would be classified as falling within
the definition of parricide or infanticide. The sole issue in this case is the
existence of a circumstance that would qualify the killing of Glaiza to the
crime of murder.

There is no question that appellate courts will not overturn the findings of
fact of the trial court unless there is a showing that the latter overlooked
facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result
of the case. Generally, though, the findings of the trial court, especially as to
its calibration of witnesses' testimonies and assessment of their credibility
and conclusions anchored on these findings, are given due deference and
respect.15

As concluded by the RTC, evident premeditation is not present in this case.

This Court is in agreement but for a different reason. The elements of
evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit
the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has
clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to
commit the crime and its actual execution enough to allow the accused to
reflect upon the consequences of his acts.16 These elements have to be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.17

Though accused-appellant went into the house in a sudden and unexpected

manner, presumably to attack Glaiza, there is no proof beyond reasonable
doubt that he decided to do so and clung to this amounting to evident
premeditation. The Court cannot fully subscribe to the RTC's theory that
accused-appellant planned to confront Glaiza but did not plan to kill her. On
the contrary, the evidence shows that when he swiftly entered the house
and went straight to the kitchen, he already had a decision to harm Glaiza.
However, the element that there was a sufficient lapse of time between the
decision to commit the crime and its actual commission was not proven
satisfactorily inasmuch as it would qualify the killing as murder. The
testimonies and object evidence do not necessarily yield the conclusion that
he clung to the determination to kill Glaiza. The decision to kill prior to the
moment of its execution must have been the result of meditation,
calculation, reflection or persistent attempts.18 This aspect was not proven
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and as such, evident
premeditation cannot be said to be present here. Nevertheless, the
conclusion that the crime is still murder stays not because of the existence
of evident premeditation, but of treachery.

Treachery is present in this case

Accused-appellant's main contention is that the qualifying circumstance of

treachery was not proven by the prosecution; hence, the crime should be
homicide, not murder.

The Court disagrees.

Based on the clear, consistent, and convincing testimonies of Josephine and

Celestina, accused-appellant entered the house and commenced stabbing
Glaiza while the latter was preparing dinner. Celestina was even in the same
small vicinity where the attack was committed while she was working with
the gas tank that Glaiza needed to cook the rice.

Accused-appellant's version is belied by the testimonies of Celestina and

Josephine, who averred that they did not notice his presence and arrival at
their home prior to the stabbing incident. Not only was his account of the
events riddled with inconsistencies, it is also self-serving and unsupported by
any other circumstance that would make the Court believe his story over
that of Josephine's and Celestina's.

Treachery has long been defined by this Court, especially as to its character
as a qualifying circumstance for murder. It is a circumstance that must be
proven as indubitably as the crime itself and constitutes two (2) elements:
(1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked
no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (2) that said means of execution
were deliberately or consciously adopted.19

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the
slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked.20 A swift and
unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without
risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an indication
that treachery is present.21 What is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.22 In
that sense, even attacks that occur from the front may be considered
treacherous if the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the deceased
had no time to prepare for self-defense.23 The mode of attack must also be
consciously adopted. The accused must make some preparation to kill the
deceased in a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it
impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. The
attack, then, must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.24

Both elements of treachery are doubtlessly attendant here. Even in the short
span of time that Celestina turned her back to switch on the stove, accused-
appellant already managed to start his deplorable deed. This is a sign of his
conscious choice to employ the specific means and methods to kill Glaiza,
and not the product of some sudden emotional response. There is also no
proof to show that he and Glaiza were engaged in a heated discussion
immediately prior to the incident. On the other hand, the courts a quo were
thoroughly convinced that accused-appellant unexpectedly entered the
house, went straight for Glaiza, and immediately, without warning and
through an almost stealthy manner, stabbed the latter numerous times. The
circumstances are typical of a treacherous attack constituting of murder and
not homicide.

Further, Glaiza was attacked in the back, with accused-appellant holding her
hair to prevent her from moving. Josephine testified to this fact in this wise:

Q: While watching TV, what if any happened?

A: While watching TV my daughter Glaiza was preparing for our supper.
Q: And after that, what happened next?
A: At the time Arnel Kalipayan, the former live-in partner of my daughter
suddenly entered our house having with him a bladed weapon.
Q: Upon entering your house, what if any did Arnel Kalipayan do?
A: He suddenly entered the house without permission and
approached my daughter who was at that time preparing for our
meals stabbed her at her back and held her hair and let my daughter
faced him and stabbed her on her stomach and the food that she ate
spilled out of her stomach.
Q: As far as you know, how many times did Arnel Kalipayan stabbed your
daughter?
A: 17 times.
Q: And while he was stabbing your daughter, what did you do, if any?
A: I tried to stop him but he instead faced me and poked at me the bladed
weapon that he used in stabbing my daughter and he said "do you intervene
because you have no business."25
XXX
Q: When your daughter was stabbed, what was she doing at the time she
was stabbed?
A: She was cooking.
Q: You mean she was preparing for the rice to be cooked?
A: She was preparing to cook the rice.
Q: So, what is that, was she washing the rice to be cooked?
A: When she was about to put the rice to be cooked over the stove she
requested my mother to open the stove because it was leaking and at that
time when they were having a conversation with my mother that was the
time when Arnel Kalipayan entered the house.
Q: If you know, where was your daughter hit for the first time?
A: At her back (witness pointed to her back towards the shoulder).
Q: Using the Interpreter, please indicate whether your daughter was hit for
the first time?
A: Here (witness indicated by touching the middle portion of the
back of the Interpreter, the spinal column). 26 (emphasis supplied)

Celestina's account of the events also shows not only the suddenness of the
attack but that accused-appellant rendered Glaiza defenseless as well, to
wit:

Q: After she requested you to open the tank, what did you do?
A: I went near the LPG tank to open it.
Q: Were you able to open it?
A: I was not able to open it, because when I was about to open it I saw
Arnel Kalipayan already stabbing my granddaughter.
Q: Did you notice where Arnel Kalipayan came from?
A: I just saw him inside our house already stabbing Glaiza.
Q: What was the position of Glaiza when she [sic] first stabbed by Arnel
Kalipayan?
A: She was already lying down faced up and she was being stabbed by
Arnel.
Court: The first time you saw Arnel Kalipayan what she was doing?
A: That's it, when I was about to open the gas, when I turned my head to
the left (witness demonstrated by turning her head to the left) that was
what I saw, Arnel Kalipayan was already stabbing my granddaughter
Glaiza.27

Though she was asked several times28 at various points during the course of
her testimony, Celestina did not waver in her story and remained consistent
throughout.

The Medico-Legal Autopsy Report corroborates these statements. From what

can be made out from the said report, the following are the wounds
sustained by Glaiza:

HEAD:
- Punctured wound, right lower mandibular region, measuring 1 x 0.5 x 1
cms AML.
CHEST:
- Stab wound, left chest, anterior at the level of the 3rd ICS, measuring 3 x 1
x 9 cms. AML, 8 cms in depth penetrating the left thoracic cavity hitting
the upper lobe of the left lung.
- Punctured wound, anterior chest, left, measuring 1 x 0.5 x 2 cms AML,
muscle deep, non-penetrating.
- Stab wound, left chest, anterior portion, measuring 3 x 1 x 12 cms AML,
directed medialwards, non-penetrating.
- Stab wound, left anterior chest, measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cms AML, 6 cms in
deep, directed posteriorwards penetrating [indiscernible] cavity, left hitting
the substance of the heart.
- Stab wound, [indiscernible] portion of the left chest at the level of the
4th ICS, measuring [indiscernible] x 13 cms AML, directed medially,
penetrating the left thoracic cavity hitting the left lung and the side of the
heart.
- Stab wound, right anterior chest, at the level of the 3rd ICS, measuring 3 x
2 x 9 cms AML, 4 cms in depth, directed posteriorwards, penetrating the
right thoracic cavity hitting the middle lobe of the left lung.
- Stab wound, anterior chest right, at the level of the 3rd ICS, at the level of
the anterior mid mammary line, measuring 3 x 1 x 3 cms AML, non-
penetrating.
- Stab wound, [indiscernible] posterior chest, right at the level of
the 5th ICS, measuring 1 x 1 just along the posterior median line
measuring 1 x 1 cms.
- Stab wound, left posterior chest at the level of the 5 th CIS,
measuring 1x 1 x 2 cms, non-penetrating.
ABDOMEN:
 
- Stab WOUND, lateral left portion of the abdomen, measuring 3 x 3 x 10
cms AML, directed medially, penetrating the abdominal cavity.
EXTREMITIES:
- Stab wound, right forearm, middle third, anterior portion, measuring 3 x 1
cms.
- Incised wound, left hand, at the base portion of the left finger, measuring
3 x 2 cms.
- Incised wound, posterior portion of the left hand, measuring 4 x 3 cms.
- Stab wound, left thigh, anterior lower third, measuring 4 x 2 cms.
- Stab wound, medial portion of the left thigh measuring 1 x 1 cms.
(emphasis supplied)

While many of the stab and puncture wounds were frontally made, it is
notable that Glaiza sustained posterior wounds, which strengthens
Josephine's claim that Glaiza was first struck in the back. Given this, and
uncontroverted by convincing evidence, the only reasonable conclusion that
can be made is that the attack was attended by treachery.

Furthermore, the above details show that Glaiza was not expecting the
attack. She was also rendered helpless and unprotected not only by the
swiftness of the attack, but also because she was already stabbed in the
back before even becoming fully aware that a reprehensible act was being
committed against her. From this, the first element of treachery is
demonstrated without question.

The second element of treachery is likewise undoubtedly present. The time

and place, and manner of attack were deliberately chosen and accused-
appellant was immediately cloaked with impunity to ensure its successful
execution. The time of the attack, at around 5:30 p.m., was a time in which
people usually prepare their supper and households are buzzing with
activity. Accused-appellant's mode of attack, of suddenly entering the house
and going straight to where Glaiza was while the latter was preparing food,
is also clearly indicative of his nefarious plan to attack when Glaiza was not
in a position to defend herself.

With this finding that treachery is present, the conclusion that the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed therein necessarily
follows. Even without a definite finding as to whether it exists in this case or
not, it is beyond cavil that treachery, as a qualifying circumstance, absorbs
the aggravating circumstance abuse of superior strength even though the
latter was alleged in the information.29 Thus, the circumstance of abuse of
superior strength should not be appreciated as a separate aggravating
circumstance.

Penalty and damages

As correctly held by the RTC and CA, the crime committed by accused-
appellant is murder, qualified by treachery. However, the Court has to
modify the penalty, as well as the awarded damages, because of the
existence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. This circumstance
was discussed by the RTC in this wise:

Reviewing the evidence of the prosecution, there is no evidence to prove

that Arnel had deliberately and purposely intended to carry his evil design
inside the house of Glaiza, and to cause disrespect to the sanctity of Glaiza's
dwelling place. In fact, this Court even eliminated the presence of evident
premeditation as an attendant qualifying circumstance.30

Notably, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling need not be "deliberately

and purposely intended" by an accused for it to be appreciated. Rather, it
aggravates the felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the
offended party and the latter did not give any provocation. It is considered
an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
accorded to the human abode. Repeated across many cases are these lines:
"[o]ne's dwelling is a sanctuary worthy of respect thus one who slanders
another in the latter's house is more severely punished than one who
offends him elsewhere. According to Cuello Calon, the commission of the
crime in another's dwelling shows worse perversity and produces graver
harm."31 He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is
more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.32
As pointed out earlier, Glaiza was only preparing dinner in the sanctity of her
home when the attack happened. There was no prior incident that would
give rise to accused-appellant's sudden actions. Clearly, there was no
provocation that would exempt this case from being aggravated by the
circumstance of dwelling. There is also no question that Glaiza was living in
the same house where the crime was committed. Therefore, the penalty
imposed upon accused-appellant should be that for an aggravated crime, the
higher of the two (2) indivisible penalties, which is death in this case.
However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 934633 , the penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed, with no eligibility for parole. Not only  that, the
amount of the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages have to be
modified accordingly. The case of People v. Jugueta34 laid down the amounts
that should be awarded to the victims of some particular crimes. For the
crime of murder, punished by death but reduced to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole because of Republic Act No. 9346, the
heirs of Glaiza should be awarded the amount of P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages. The award of funeral expenses claimed by Josephine is sustained.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The July 29, 2016 Decision of the

Court of Appeals-Visayas Station in CA-GR CEB-CR-HC No. 01962
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Arnel Kalipayan
y Aniano is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Glaiza Molina P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages. All the other monetary awards ordered by the RTC are sustained.
Appellant shall pay an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the
aggregate amount of the monetary awards computed from the time of
finality of this Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.