CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. DELIMA [46 Phil. 738 (1922)] Facts: Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail.

Poiiceman Felipe Delima found him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima ordered his surrender but Napoleon answered with a stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged it, fired his revolver but didn’t hit Napoleon. The criminal tried to ran away, not throwing his weapon; the policeman shot him dead. Delima was tried and convicted for homicide; he appealed. Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be acquitted. The court held that the killing was done in performance of a duty. Napoleon was under the obligation to surrender and his disobedience with a weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The action was justified by the circumstances.
Case digest on PEOPLE V. HERMOGENES FLORA G.R. NO. 125909

The 2 accused (Hermogenes and Edwin) were convicted for the murder of Emerita and Ireneo and the attempted murder of Flor. The 2 were found to have conspired to kill Ireneo. However, during the commission of the crime, Emerita was also killed and Flor hit by a bullet. HELD: Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. Evidence only shows conspiracy to kill Ireneo and no one else. Hence, both can be convicted for the murder of Ireneo. However, only Hermogenes who fired at Emerita and Flor can be convicted for the murder of Emerita and Flor respectively. case digests, case digests of supreme court decisions, case digests Philippines, mobile phone deals, laptop computers, gadgets, free legal opinion, online jobs, best law firms in Mindanao

People vs Francisco Abarca G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987 Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, sentencing the accused-appellant Francisco Abarca to death for the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder. The case was elevated to this Court in view of the death sentence imposed. With the approval of the new Constitution, abolishing the penalty of death and commuting all existing death sentences to life imprisonment, we required the accused-appellant to inform us whether or not he wished to pursue the case as an appealed case. In compliance therewith, he filed a statement informing us that he wished to continue with the case by way of an appeal. On 15 July 1984 in Tacloban City, the accused, Francisco Abarca with deliberate intent to kill and with evident premeditation, and with treachery, armed with an unlicensed firearm (armalite), M-16 rifle, shot several times Khingsley Paul Koh on the different parts of his body inflicting upon gunshot wounds which caused his instantaneous death and as a consequence of which also caused gunshot wounds to Lina Amparado and Arnold Amparado on the different parts of their bodies which have caused the death of said spouses. Issue: W/O accused-appellant is liable for the crime of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder? Held: The case at bar requires distinctions. Here, the accused-appellant was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot therefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados. For the separate injuries suffered by the Amparado spouses, we therefore impose upon the accused-appellant arresto mayor (in its medium and maximum periods) in its maximum period, arresto to being the graver penalty (than destierro). The decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is sentenced to four months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor. The period within which he has been in confinement shall be credited in the service of these penalties. He is furthermore ordered to indemnify Arnold and Lina Amparado in the sum of P16,000.00 as and for hospitalization expense and the sum of P1,500.00 as and for Arnold Amparado's loss of earning capacity. No special pronouncement as to costs.

People of the Philippines vs. Gonzales, Jr. People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Inocencio Gonzales, Jr., accused-appellant. G.R. No. 139542 June 21, 2001 Gonzaga-Reyes, J. FACTS: On October 31, 1998 at about 2:30 p.m., the families of Noel Andres and herein accusedappellant were both on their way to the exit of the Loyola Memorial Park. At the intersection point, the cars they were driving almost collided. Later on, when Andres found an opportunity, he cut Gonzalez off, disembarked from his car and went over to Gonzales’. Altercation then ensued. Meanwhile, Dino Gonzalez, son of Inocencio, entered the scene in defense of his father. Fearing that his son was in danger, Gonzalez took out the gun which was already in his car compartment. Upon seeing his father, Gonzalez’s daughter, Trisha, hugged her father and in the process held his hand holding the gun. The appellant tried to free his hand and with Trisha’s substantial body weight pushing against him the appellant lost his balance and the gun accidentally fired. Feliber Andres, Noel’s wife, was shot to death while their son, Kenneth and nephew Kevin were wounded. The trial court found the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and accordingly sentenced him to death. Accused were also ordered to pay for civil liabilities to the heirs of Mrs. Andres, and the parents of Kevin Valdez. Hence, an automatic review or this case.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error when it found treachery was present in the commission of the crime. 2. Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to appreciate voluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong be considered as mitigating circumstances. RULINGS: 1. It has been consistently held by this court that chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. Thus, the sudden attack made by the accused due to his infuriation by reason of the victim’s provocation was held to be without treachery. Sudden attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults by the victim or acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious or aggressive behavior of the victim were held to be without treachery as the victim was sufficiently forewarned of reprisal. For the rules on treachery to apply the sudden attack must have been

The testimony of prosecution witness contradicts the appellant’s pretense of voluntary surrender. The aggressive behavior of Noel Andres towards the appellant and his son may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at the complainant’s vehicle. . pleaded by the defense. The sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case. The appellant’s use of a gun. although not deliberately sought nor employed in the shooting. should have reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the possible consequences of his act. Dino Gonzalez. 2.preconceived by the accused. We affirm the recommendation of the Solicitor-General that the shooting was not attended by treachery and accordingly the crime committed for the death of Feliber Andres is homicide and not murder. Finally. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. passion and obfuscation. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender. The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative is also unmeritorious since the act of Andres in cursing and shouting at the appellant and his son do not amount to an unlawful aggression against them. the plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is likewise devoid of merit. the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim. incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used. unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the part of the latter. were not convincingly proved and none can be considered in the imposition of penalties. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The use of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes committed.

The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. it is no defense that in reality. the crime was impossible of commission. However. and The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. There is no intention to perform the physical act. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummation of intended crime. or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. she was in another city then thus they hit no one. CA [215 SCRA 52 (1992)] Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. There must either be (1) legal responsibility. In the Philippines. such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where: (1) (2) (3) (4) The motive. Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible crime—an act which. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. They fired at her room. would not amount to a crime. desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed. Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There is a performance of the intended physical act.CASE DIGEST ON INTOD V. Only impossible crime. Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder? Held: No. . And under Article 4.

After charges were filed and his commanding officer was told of the incident. case digests of supreme court decisions. Being restrained by one’s superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to the investigating authorities concerned. 117954(April 27. online jobs. 2000) The appellant shot the victim who later died. best law firms in Mindanao .Case Digest on People v. Acuram G. In this case. case digests. where he surrendered. gadgets. is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as contemplated by law. No.R. case digests Philippines. it was appellant’s commanding officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court. laptop computers. free legal opinion. mobile phone deals. HELD: Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. he was ordered not to leave camp.

We also agree with the trial court that there was negligence on the part of the defendant. Salud Villanueva Vda. A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is found in Volume 38. the Medina Transportation having undertaken to carry Bataclan safely to his destination. while there were 4. Their cries were heard in the neighbourhood. who could not get out. which. There is no question that under the circumstances. through his agent. including that of the defense. must have applied the brakes in order to stop the bus. 'that cause. it caught fire and the passengers died. da Bataclan v. . all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events. including Bataclan. there was a distance of about 150 meters. On its way from Cavite to Pasay. It is as follows: . pages 695-696 of American jurisprudence.' And more comprehensively. and the Court of Appeals forwarded the case to the Supreme Court due to the amount involved. each having a close causal connection with its immediate . produces the injury. de Bataclan. Some passengers were able to escape by themselves or with some help.Vda. cited by plaintiffs-appellants in their brief. The fire was due to gasoline leak and the torch. Pasay City. either immediately or by setting other events in motion. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. the bus was speeding. one of them carrying a torch. in natural and continuous sequence. Medina Facts: The deceased Juan Bataclan was among the passengers of Medina Transportation. after the blow-out. in her name and on behalf of her 5 minor children. the defendant carrier is liable. and without which the result would not have occurred. Then there came about 10 men. and as shown by the fact that according to the testimony of the witnesses. There is evidence to show that at the time of the blow out. the front tires burst and the vehicle fell into a canal. sought to claim damages from the bus company. The only question is to what degree. but because of the velocity at which the bus must have been running. 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury. from the point where one of the front tires burst up to the canal where the bus overturned after zig-zaging. As they approached the bus. as testified to by one of the passengers. . the driver Saylon. its momentum carried it over a distance of 150 meters before it fell into the canal and turned turtle. The chauffeur. driven by Conrado Saylon and operated by Mariano Medina. Issue: What was the proximate cause of the death of Juan and the other passengers? Held: We agree with the trial court that the case involves a breach of contract of transportation for hire. The CFI favored the plaintiff.

by the driver and the conductor themselves. the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was. and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. but most probably. and that because it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning). the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. the rescuers had to carry a light with them. this for the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back. that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help.predecessor. the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back and forth. or at least. the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier. have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. What is more. as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person. In the present case under the circumstances obtaining in the same. can be smelt and directed even from a distance. and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available. . through is driver and its conductor. the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted. the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected. we do not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus. gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus. the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. In other words. specially over a large area. They. According to the witness. this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled. made not only by the passengers. and yet neither the driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should.

to pay indemnity in the sum of P4. as minimum to 17 years. whereupon she saw her brother. convicting appellant Climaco Demiar of the crime of parricide and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor. It appears that appellant Climaco Demiar and his wife lived in the same house with his mother Pilar Edaño in the sitio of Lacaron. At about noontime on Friday. BARRERA. vs. with a brother and a sister. J. finding that his mother. Pilar Edaño. Cebu. 1955. whose house was only about 15 yards from that Pilar Edaño. Pilar Edaño. because she had been very busy grinding corn. The latter explained that she was notable to cook their food. 4 months. about 30 yards away. went to the house of her grandmother (Pilar Edaño). CLIMACO DEMIAR. Teofilo Mendoza.m. August 5. and 1 day of reclusion temporal. 1960 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. was also attracted by the shouts for help and the commotion in the house of the latter. barrio lieutenant of Tambongon. had not prepared any food. . At about 1:30 p. accompanied by his wife.R.SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. Bautista for appellee. L-15130 May 31.000. plaintiff-appellee. barrio Tambongon. choking their mother Pilar Edaño. Appellant returned shortly before sunset and. speaking in a guttural voice which could hardly be understood. and inquired what the commotion was all about. Cebu. San Remigio. No. Appellant thereupon became angry and began to choke his mother. making her and Pacita Catanda scream. as maximum. The screams and shouts attracted the attention of Trifona Demiar who has living in a house nearby. after spouses left. who did not pity her. Like Trifona. Pilar Edaño's daughter. He immediately went to said house. told Magdadaro that she had been choked by her son. appellant who was a gambler. herein appellant. Case No. V4961). Meliton Magdadaro. Trifona Demiar then and there told appellant to release their mother. near the stove in the kitchen. Jr. appellant herein. reprimanded her. defendant-appellant. and to pay the costs. Pacita Catanda.: Appeal1 from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu(in Crim. Appellant did as he was told and went upstairs. went to the market place at barrio Tambongon.00 to the heirs of the deceased Pilar Edaño. for appellant.. Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Crispin V. 12-year old daughter of Trifona Demiar. as she used to do. who was then sitting near a stove. Trifona immediately went to the house of her mother.

While he was under detention in the municipal building at San Remigio. His version. she had an attack of her high blood pressure. 1955. 1955. 1955. and Meliton Magdadaro. she again lost consciousness and . After choking by appellant. San Remigio. that sometime in the afternoon of August 5. that his deceased mother was sickly. as he was then quarrelling with his wife. for forgiveness and pity. he sent a letter (Exhs. Tambongon. husband of Santas Demiar. and remained conscious for about half an hour. when the chief of police and the Justice of the Peace of San Remigio asked questions. a daughter of hers. appellant denied having choked his mother Pilar Edaño. Her physical condition deteriorated. After Pilar Edaño's death. Acting upon the report. who. until she died 3 days after the incident. A and A-3-A) to his brother-in-law. however. said chief of the police cited appellant to appear before him. among other things. On August 10. appellant denied that he choked his mother. and sisters. necklaces. that she was sickly when she returned to appellant's place at Lacaron. Trifona Demiar. Cebu. Meliton Magdadaro. During the investigation conducted by the chief of police. and some neighbors came and tried to revive her. during her lifetime. and she fell to the floor.Pacita Catanda. is as follows: That he is the youngest son of the deceased Pilar Edaño. appellant cried and asked for forgiveness from his sister and begged them to discontinue the case against him. if she ever called a doctor. Santas Demiar reported the incident to the chief of police of San Remigio. He claimed that he only held her shoulder. that on that occasion. corroborated by his brother. who had always been in good health and doing a lot of household chores previously. Appellant's wife. accompanied by Trifona Demiar. when questioned by the chief of police in the presence of appellant. barrio Tambongon. It appears. likewise that after Pilar Edaño was choked by appellant prevented her from doing so. sometime in May. and Ciano Bacare. lost consciousness. Pilar Edaño could no longer swallow any food. after the corresponding complaint for parricide was filed against him by the chief of police on August 11. Cebu. that she went to Masbate. and requesting his sister to withdraw the complaint against him. asking him. and learned of the cause of her mother's death. and other pieces of jewelry to appellant. nor drink water. Trifona Demiar. 1955. lived with him at Lacaron. named Santas Demiar. arrived from Tabuelan. became bluish. Likewise. San Remigio. admitted that her husband (appellant) choked his mother. he tried to tell his mother to keep quiet. 1955. Pilar Edaño. that after bequeathing her rings. to visit her sons and daughters residing there. noticed that the face of Pilar Edaño. the deceased. and stated that she died of ill-health and high-blood pressure. On the witness stand. she fainted 5 times due to high blood pressure. threatening her with death. due to her swollen neck. Bernardino Demiar. that she regained consciousness in the morning of August 8. during the investigation. and remained Demiar. Lope Mayol. Cebu. Priscila Demiar and Dominga Demiar. and suffered from high blood pressure. that while his deceased mother was in Masbate in the house of her daughter Dominga Demiar. Cebu. earrings. Meliton Magdadaro.

An examination of the testimony of Pacita Catanda. (People vs. contends that the trial court in relying upon the allegedly unreliable testimony of Pacita Catanda. not only her mother's screams. The Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of Pacita Catanda. Appellant's claim that his mother's death was due to natural sickness and that she died of high blood pressure cannot be sustained in the face of the direct and positive testimonies of Pacita Catanda. 55 Phil. appellant's cousin. appellant's sister. Alembra. believes that her testimony is admissible in evidence against the accused. and the supposedly improbable testimony of Trifona Demiar. 45 Phil. suffice it also to state that said witness heard. by appellant. straightforward.. She has been examined with reference to her ability to understand the nature of an oath and the Court has observed that she is possessed of sufficient intelligence and discernment to justify it in accepting to the questions propounded to her were prompt. but also because it is intelligible as well. there is the testimony of Trifona Demiar. who. who investigated appellant. was intelligent enough to convey what she perceived on the date in question. therefore. that after appellant was detained. not only because it is rational. on cross-examination. chief of police of San Remigio. In respect of appellant's contention that his sister Trifona Demiar could not have heard the screams and shouts as her mother at a distance of 60 yards. Needless to say. which are corroborated by those of Meliton Magdadaro. the 12-years old grandchild of the deceased Pilar Edaño and niece of appellant and Trifona Demiar. who also saw appellant choke their mother. and Telesforo Pestaño. gave credence to her testimony. The defense. that the accusation against him is false. however. that the trial court.never regained it. Bustos. Santas Demiar and her husband mortgaged the land to Juanito Pepito for P250. who actually saw the choking of her grandmother. although a child of tender age at the time she took the witness stand. but also the shouts of her daughter Pacita Catanda. the spouses had the house of appellant demolished and appropriated the materials thereof. an intelligent child is as a rule the best witness in the world. Appellant points to an apparent contradiction in Pacita Catanda's testimony. the deceased Pilar Edaño. disclosed that said witness. stated that she did not see appellant in her grandmother's house. Pacita Catanda is a niece of the accused and there is nothing in the record to show that she has been induced or in any manner impelled by any ulterior motive to testify falsely against the accused.) But apart from Pacita Catanda's testimony. while on direct examination she said that she saw appellant choke her grandmother in the latter's house. Suffice it to say. and devoid of evasion or any semblance of shuffling. and that later. Besides. malicious.00. People vs. responsible to interrogatories. it is a matter of common . and fabricated by his sister Santas Demiar and her husband Lope Mayol. which observed and sized up said witness. who bore a grudge against him. because he opposed the mortgage of a land belonging to their mother. 578. We are in entire accord with the following observations of the trial court on the point. 9. The Court. appellant's sister..

Gaz. Appellant's behavior. while under detention. that Lope Mayol and his wife were actuated by ulterior motives. Macalindong. Granting for the sake of argument. Pacita Catanda. (People vs. Added to this. The testimony of Meliton Magdadaro corroborates those of Pacita Catanda and Trifona Demiar. bolsters the testimony of the witness for the prosecution that the accused.) . In the absence of such evidence. in fact. Phil. The money realized from the sale was used to defray the marriage expenses of appellant and his wife. appellant wrote a letter (Exhs. appellant herein. Trifona Demiar Meliton Magdadaro. is the behavior or appellant who. It appears that the land in question was sold by the deceased to the spouses Lope Mayol and Santas Demiar on September 4. 76 Phil. B). As correctly observed by the trial court: If it is true the accused did not choke his mother. and the Chief of Police Telesforo Pestaño. 702. Barbano. A and A-3-A)to his brother-in-law. does not deserve any serious consideration.. Lope Mayol. This letter. Meliton Magdadaro appellant's cousin. during the investigation and in the presence of the chief of police and the justice of the peace. and was told by Pilar Edaño that she was choked by her son. Too. who allegedly bore a grudge against him. (People vs. there is no showing that the other witnesses. there was certainly no necessity for him to induce his sister Santas Demiar to just declare that their mother died of illness. because of his opposition to his proposal to mortgage the land of their mother Pilar Edaño. 490. is evidently incompatible with his protestations of innocence. the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive existed. appear to be disinterested witnesses in this case.. and concocted by his sister Santas and her husband Lope Mayol. cried and asked for forgiveness from his sister. in effect. chief of police. Appellant's claim that the charge against him is false. and that their testimony is worthy of faith and credit.. like Pacita Catanda. had any motive to falsely impute so grave a crime as parricide to appellant. 76. seeking forgiveness from his sister and asking them to testify that their mother (the deceased Pilar Edaño) died a natural death. in truth and in fact. He went there to investigate. and appellant himself was one of the witness to the sale. choke the deceased Pilar Edaño. 478. Trifona Demiar. 43 Off. and leaves no room for doubt that appellant did. 1954 (Exh. so much so that a light noise is easily heard at far distances. 719. This witness stated that his attention was attracted by the shouts and screams coming from Pilar Edaño's house. and Telesforo Pestaño. greater weight must necessarily be given to that of the former..) Between the positive testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the mere denials of the accused. the trial court said: The witness of the prosecution. appellant's niece. On this point. appellant's sister. Gaz. 43 Off. choked his mother on the afternoon in question. No evidence whatsoever has been presented to show any reason or motive why these witnesses should have testified falsely against the accused.knowledge that barrios are free from the noises that obtain in large and busy communities. who did not pity her. malicious.

).the deceased victim of the criminal act being his legitimate mother. as already stated. . the death of said deceased. the deceased Pilar Edaño was enjoying normal health. there is direct and positive.) Considering that appellant had choked the deceased. 524. that no expert witness was presented to testify on the cause of her death. fullycorroborated testimony. the trial court should have considered it in his favor. that the deceased's death was the direct and natural consequence of the injuries inflicted on her by appellant. and splitting firewood. it may stated that self-serving statements made extra-judicially cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of the person making them. that before the choking incident. As pointed out by the Solicitor General. and that possibly the deceased had died of another cause and not due to the act of appellant. in the absence of evidence that the cause of the deceased's death was the result of strangulation. instead of considering said letter as evidence indicative of his guilt. (People vs. (People vs.. Revised Penal Code). 341. vs. 564. because he disclaimed therein asked forgiveness from his sisters and begged them to testify that their mother died of natural illness and not of strangulation. we fail to see why said statements could not be taken as an admission of appellant's guilt. the failure of appellant's deceased mother to prepare food for him while he was away gambling. suffering from high blood pressure. Piring. or a circumstance of analogous nature should be considered in his favor. 58 Phil. that from the time she was strangled. From these facts. without recovering from the effects of the strangulation. 18 and other cases.. 310.S. thereby inflicting injuries upon her. Reyes. As to the argument that said letter should have been considered in appellant's favor. 13 [3]. Cagoco. As correctly held by the trial court.) The crime committed by appellant is parricide (Art. and did the daily household chores such as fetching water. however. and logical consequences of his criminal or unlawful acts.. and that she died 3 days later. We do not agree. Well-settled is the rule that a person is responsible for the direct. that the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation. 61 Phil. Brobst. 98 Phil. It is argued that the trial court should have given credence to the defense version that the deceased was a sick woman. Martin. that after appellant choked her. People vs. which may have cause her death. The penalty imposed by the trial court is. 246. which crime is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. natural. she became seriously ill. Appellant argues that. grinding corn. in the absence of proof to the contrary. gave him no justification to lose his temper and strangle her to death. appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong (Art. it is to conclude.) It is finally contended that the trial court erred in convicting appellant of the crime of parricide. 14 Phil. But. although the incriminating statement is evidence against him. which resulted as consequences of such injuries.. cooking food. therefore. modified to that of reclusion perpetua. leaving her at home to do the household chores for him. which we hereby impose on appellant. (U.. 63 Phil. id. A) and that there is nothing in the letter which would show that appellant admitted his guilt. he is responsible for all the consequences of his criminal act. she could not swallow food or drink water.It is also contended for appellant that the trial court erred in admitting appellant's letter to his brother-in-law Lope Mayol (Exh. People vs.

Bautista Angelo. Bengzon. JJ. Labrador. So ordered. Paras. C. J. with costs against the defendant appellant Climaco Demiar.. the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. in all respects. concur. and Gutierrez David.Modified as above indicated. . Concepcion..

R. Respondent. plaintiff-appellee. Decided on April 21. JJ. Decision Date: April 21.. 130499. People v Paige. 2010 [G. We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant's counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California. TANENBAUM and IANNACCI. No. upon his plea of guilty. Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Cortlandt.P. The judgment convicted defendant. vs. J. J. against Daniel Piamonte.. 2010 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : LaCAVA. JJ 2008-716 W CR. Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.P. Appellant. Tanenbaum and Iannacci.). rendered March 13. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ “NOEL QUIMSON. Westchester County (Daniel F. McCarthy. J. The People of the State of New York. 2001] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2010 Appellate Term. 386 US 738 [1967].” accused-appellant. October 5. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. LaCava. ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed. concur. of criminal contempt in the second degree. 54 AD2d 631 [1976])..People v Piamonte (Daniel) Share | [*1] People v Piamonte (Daniel) 2010 NY Slip Op 50746(U) [27 Misc 3d 134(A)] Decided on April 21. DECISION . 2008.

and to indemnify the legal heirs of the victims sums of money as follows: “HEIRS OF ROMEO MATIAS.000.00 Actual Damages Moral Damages Burial “HEIRS OF RAUL RENDOR P P P 50.00 150.000.000.000. with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and generic aggravating circumstance.a. and hereby imposes upon said accused the penalty of DEATH. 5 Judicial Region. th “WHEREFORE. SR.00 30.000.000. as amended. NOEL QUIMSON. of evident premeditation without any mitigating circumstance.000. Branch 11.000. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MULTIPLE MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248. the dispositive portion of which reads. in Criminal Case No.00 30. PAMFILO QUIMSON. the court finds the accused.00 Actual Damages Moral Damages Burial .000.00 30. P P P 50.000.00 Actual Damages Moral Damages Burial “HEIRS OF GLENDA VILLAREAL P P P 50. in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.00 30.000. 1997 of the Regional Trial Court.00 150. a.000. 3388 for Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder. Ligao.00 150.k.00 Actual Damages Moral Damages Burial “HEIRS OF CRISALDO GUIMBA P P P 50.PER CURIAM: Before us on automatic review is the decision dated June 30.00 150. Albay.

Rendor and Flores confided to Isidra that they were ambushed by Pamfilo Quimson with some unidentified companions. some 100 meters ahead. the driver of the Tamaraw FX. His wife Vivian . “SO ORDERED. Major Arroyo of the PNP Crime Laboratory concluded that the ambush vehicle was fired upon from the right side and at the back. Raul Rendor was operated on in order to repair the perforated wounds in his right diaphragm and the lacerated wounds in his lungs. Based on the physical evidence at hand. The following day. Isidra Matias. They took Glenda Villareal and Romeo Matias. Antonio Flores. Wilfredo Matias. There. 1995.” The antecedents are as follows: In the evening of August 17. SPO3 Iglesia arrived at the crime scene and secured it. Thereafter. while Antonio Flares was trembling.. met Rendor and Flores at the Albay Provincial Hospital where the two were subsequently brought. and Raul Rendor. Glenda Villareal and Antonio Flores . lying on the road some three (3) meters from the rear of the ambushed vehicle. where they met the latter’s wife. Sr. Sr. Saminiano. Crisaldo Guimba.. in Barangay Bagumbayan. Raul Rendor died of respiratory failure. Sr. Albay . Minutes later. Later that day. The three policemen found the blue Tamaraw FX resting on the shoulder of the road. SPO1 Penafiel. managed to get out of the vehicle.were waylaid and fired upon by gunmen. Raul Rendor was noticeably weak and pale. He made a sketch and caused the vehicle to be photographed. the Task Force went to the Albay Provincial Hospital to interview Raul Rendor. He also recovered 39 empty bullet shells from the crime scene. who was seated beside him.. to the Pio Duran Memorial Hospital. which had been lifted out of the Tamaraw FX by onlookers. Sr. In the morning of August 21. Raul Rendor. who earlier accompanied another victim. the two proceeded to the house of Romeo Matias. 1995 Romeo Matias. Rendor told Wilfredo Matias that Pamfilo Quimson was one of their assailants. Ligao. Thereafter. On August 19. the investigation of the shooting incident was transferred to the Task Force Katarungan under Senior Superintendent D. Surgical packs were temporarily placed inside his body to prevent further bleeding at the back of his liver. and he was constantly clutching his stomach.“With costs. Isidra told their family driver to bring Rendor and Flores to the hospital. He saw the Tamaraw FX slanting on the right shoulder of the road and facing the direction of the house of Romeo Matias. SPO3 Bea and P03 Borromeo were the first policemen to respond to the ambush-slaying of Matias’ group at the corner of Colon and Mabini Streets. Wounded. Raul Rendor underwent a second operation to remove the said surgical packs.who were all then on board a blue Toyota Tamaraw FX traveling along Colon St. He found the body of Crisaldo Guimba. 1995.

Philippines. Barrosa gave their consent to the interview. did then and there wilfully. The most fatal is wound No. some characterized by contusion collars and tattooing. unlawfully and feloniously fire at a blue colored Tamaraw FX. witnesses testified that they saw her wounded and had to be brought to the Albay Provincial Hospital where she died on August 18. The cause of death is also ‘hemorrhagic shock due to skull fracture secondary to fatal gunshot wounds’ (Exhibit ‘E’). SR. accused-appellant Pamfilo Quimson was charged with Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder under the following information: “The undersigned. the court a quo found the injuries and cause of death of the victims to be as follows: “ROMEO MATIAS. However.” On October 2. The cause of death is ‘respiratory failure. at Albay Provincial Hospital. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Albay. secondary to multiple fatal gunshot wounds with brain tissue evisceration’ (Exhibit ‘C’). The investigation was brief because the witness was in pain and had difficulty in breathing. Ligao. hereby accuses PAMFILO QUIMSON alias NOEL QUIMSON. with treachery. confederating and helping each other for a common purpose.: He died on the spot. 1 which involved skull fracture and avulsion of the scalp.ROMEO MATIAS. seriously wounding ANTONIO “REY” FLORES which would have produced the crime . 1995. with intent to kill. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. There were sixteen (16) gunshot wounds of varying sizes. GRISALDO GUIMBA. the abovenamed accused. 1995 at Barangay Bagumbayan. Based on the evidence presented. together with two male persons. causing the death of the following passengers . 1995.. Gunshot Wound No.and his attending physician. of the crime of MULTIPLE MURDER with FRUSTRATED MURDER. The cause of death is ‘hemorrhagic shock due to skull fracture. SR. He sustained fourteen (14) gunshot wounds. evident premeditation and with the use of firearms (M-16. Albay. “GLENDA VILLAREAL: No medical evidence was presented. There is no medical evidence to prove his injuries. 1995. who are still unidentified. committed as follows: ‘That on or about 8:45 in the evening of August 17. Each of the wounds was fatal. 2 involved an avulsion of the scalp and evisceration of the tissues of the brain. M-14 and 9MM pistol). secondary to gunshot wounds’ (Exhibit ‘J’). Dr. conspiring. “CRISALDO GUIMBA: He died also on the spot. The sworn statement of the late Raul Rendor pointed to accused Pamfilo Quimson as one of the gunmen. RAUL RENDOR and GLENDA VILLAREAL y BORBE. “RAUL RENDOR: He sustained gunshot wounds involving vital organs of the body and died on August 21. mostly at the back. “ANTONIO FLORES: He did not testify in the case.

We have long since held that in order for a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE STATEMENT OF RAUL RENDOR AS A DYING DECLARATION AND BASING ITS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION UPON IT. With the court a quo’s imposition of the death penalty. In disowning liability for the offense charged. accused-appellant claimed that he was in Macalaya. accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi. (2) the deceased was at the time competent as a witness. and (4) it is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry. At around 8 o’ clock in the evening of August 17. the following requisites must concur: (1) the declaration was made by the deceased under consciousness of his impending death. According to accused-appellant. to the damage and prejudice of the victims and their heirs. but nevertheless did not produce it by reason or cause independent of the will of the perpetrators. Sorsogon.” The appeal is not meritorious. 2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE EXISTED EVIDENCE OF RES GESTAE. as a consequence.” Upon arraignment on November 14.’ “ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. Accused-appellant raises the following errors: “ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS: 1. the case is now before us on automatic review. they were then drinking in the said house located just outside their camp from 5:00 in the afternoon to 10:00 in the evening. with two of his fellow soldiers in the house of a barangay kagawad. 3. AND BASING ITS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION UPON IT. that is the immediate medical assistance given to Flores.of MURDER. accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Castilla. After trial on the merits. INCREDIBLE AND IMPLAUSIBLE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AND IGNORING THE MORE CREDIBLE AND PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED. 1995. . accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and was sentenced accordingly. Thereafter. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE BASIS OF INADMISSIBLE. accused-appellant and his two companions returned to their quarters inside the military camp. 1995. (3) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstance of the declarant’s death.

. Ligao.there was a round wound below the right scapular area .abdominal injury” .The only question raised by accused-appellant against the admissibility of the written ante mortem statement of Raul Rendor is whether or not the latter made his declaration under the consciousness of his impending death. Barrosa’s testimony.M. ambulatory .another round wound through and through at the back of his leg .intra-thoracic injury . He also points to the testimony of Dr. Accused-appellant invites our attention to that portion of the said statement wherein Rendor promised to give a supplemental statement after he had recovered. and to the fact that the same was made almost twelve (12) hours after Rendor’s first operation. it would seem that appellant’s argument may have some basis.Place of Incident: Centro.conscious. admitting that Rendor was quite fine. coherent. no guarding “IMPRESSION: . “x x x “CONDITION OF PATIENT: . Rendor’s physician. At first glance. “BRIEF HISTORY: . A thorough study of Dr.Abdomen was flat . however.Nature of Incident: Ambushed .Cardiac Rate: 120/min.Time of Incident: 8:30 P. would prove the contrary.intra.Blood Pressure: 100/80 . Albay “Physical Examination revealed the following findings: . Barrosa.with abdominal tenderness at the right upper quadrant .other quadrant soft.

also a round wound at the back portion of the liver which is larger than the one on the lungs.upon opening the abdominal wall.0 liters of blood consisting of clotted and nonclotted was found or evacuated .recovery of slug inside abdominal cavity . perforation of the right diaphragm was also seen . The character of the wound the edges were rugged on the anterior surface of the liver.bleeding persisted . The third wound.a 2. There was a wound there of about 2.This 2. The operation done in the diaphragm was repairing. and another one.midline incision carried from skin down to peritoneum .5 laceration of the right lobe of liver.0 cm. right and left part. and metal patching was done by application of square . 2.around 750 cc of clotted blood was evacuated “a) 2. lacerated wound was seen at the anterior surface of right lobe of liver “b) stellate-shaped laceration around 7.Will you explain in layman’s language the findings you have read? “A .0 cm.application of 7 square packs surrounding the liver was done . The diaphragm is the one separating our abdominal cavity from the chest cavity. 2. perforation on the right diaphragm.Close tube thoracotomy (right) F32 rectal tube revealing a pint of fresh blood and evacuating around .5 cm.close “Q .5”cm.0 cm.“x x x “A.the patient was placed under general anesthesia . in greatest diameter noted surrounded by necrotic liver tissues postero lateral surface of the (right) lobe of liver .Operative Findings of the first operation of Raul Rendor: . The liver was sutured.repair of diaphragmatic laceration was done using chronic I straumatic needle . Our liver consists of 2 parts.repairing liver laceration using parenchyma suture of metal patching was done .

” The medical findings quoted above show just how serious Rendor’s condition was. the interview had to be stopped. Rendor’s true condition was affirmed.packs at the back portion of the liver.S. More so since the effect of anesthesia had obviously worn off after almost 12 hours from the first operation. vs. These were but the result of the mismatch between the good doctor and the cunning defense counsel. Barrosa as pointed out by accused-appellant are not persuasive. He only had enough strength left to place his thumbmark. Rendor could not even bring himself to sign his declaration. and they were placed at the back of the liver. With two vital organs damaged. made to him by his medical adviser or others. In fact. this court had occasion to illustrate some of the means by which to determine the declarant’s state of mind at the time he gives his ante mortem statement.Or in the afternoon of the following day? . It may also be shown by his conduct at the time and the communications. if any. “x x x “Q . In the early case of U. The fact that a clergyman has administered to him the last rites of the church also tends to show that he was under the sense of approaching death. and the mere fact that death does not immediately follow will not render the declaration inadmissible. in point of fact.M. Virrey. depends on the state of declarant’s mind at the time of making the declaration. if acquiesced in by him.And the surgery was done at 1:20 P. his arduous discomfort and agonizing pain are quite real. Indeed. These square packs measure 4 x 8 cm. of August 18? “A . “This may be shown by the words or statements of the declarant himself. or it may be inferred from the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted.. The purpose of this is to prevent the bleeding of the liver. sir. but it should be remembered that it is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death. and this consists of about 7 packs. Rendor was in such a precarious state that the idea of dying could not have escaped him. the inference that the declarant realized his condition may be obvious. The admissibility of the declaration. Barrosa’s impression of Rendor who was perceptibly fatigued and in anguish during the taking of the latter’s statement. We also take note of Dr. that renders the testimony admissible. provided death does ensue as a result of the injuries which are the subject of the declaration. “Q . (citations omitted) “When death supervenes speedily after such a declaration is made. After only six questions.Yes.” The isolated pronouncements of Dr. When the doctor was provided the chance to explain and clarify his answers however. as is thus apparent.

the building up of the patient is necessary before an operation could be performed? “A .To correct his blood volume. sir.Yes.Before we operate on the patient. Your Honor. if any.“A . to give him antibiotics to be absorbed. “Q . I still build up the patient. the midline portion of the abdomen was being opened from the upper portion of the area going down. why several hours had elapsed before the actual operation could be performed on the patient.The primary reason is that operation called “exploratory laparotomy”.What do you mean by building up? “A . his blood volume is very low and his complaint of on and off pain of the upper portion of his abdomen. wherein in entirety. “Q . “Q . “A . sir. “Q .In general.And that operation shows that there was no danger? “A . to monitor any other existing injury.And it was done that time because you did not find anything urgent with respect to the patient? “A . sir. “COURT: “Q . yes. sir. “Q . the surgeons applied packs to stop the bleeding? “A . .Yes.Yes.And they succeeded doing so? “A .In this particular case.Yes. “COURT: Go ahead. that’s why initially.The examining counsel wanted to know from you doctor.And because of that finding.And the purpose of the operation was to evacuate the blood stocked up or accumulated on his thorax and abdominal cavity? “A . I was already contemplating of … “Q .In other words. “Q .

you were optimistic about the chances of the patient after you administered all these things? “ATTY. his pain was only localized on the right upper portion. the condition of the patient as you so examined him was such. you have to build him up to more or less make the operation successful? “A .Yes.But in extra-ordinary cases. It no longer functions. then. BRIGUERA: After when? Which day thereafter? “COURT: Immediately after. that preparatory procedure may be dispensed with and you can go directly to surgery? “A . REANTASO: “Q . that the operation could be delayed if there was a necessity? “A .“ATTY.In other words doctor.And since it was not a critical urgent case. “COURT: “Q . and at the same time to make his body a little bit stronger for his operation and blood transfusion.” (emphasis supplied) “x x x “ATTY. the liver and the lungs.In this particular case. It was bleeding. the injury to the lungs becomes worth watching. REANTASO: “Q . “Q .I am qualifying my answer basing on two organs. The pressure problem was solved but the lungs was perforated. “WITNESS: “A . the lung tube placed.Was there anything alarming from the condition of the patient before operation could be performed? “A . . his breathing was already complicated.To be delayed and the benefit of building him up and to prepare him to survive the surgery. So. the right lung. sir.After you realized that the operation was of success and the remedies you applied were effective. And later on the lungs collapsed. another complication is infection. “Q . and to lessen anesthesia risk. sir.Yes. His right lung no longer functions inspite of the tube placed.

just exactly what do you mean when you say it was successful.That is intra-operative level? “A . “Q . sir. In postoperative.In other words. is categorized into two levels. especially when the lungs are involved. “Q . It is in this level when surgery on the liver was successful but later on the patient died.Success.In the multi-organ involvement.With the patient surviving? “A .In this particular case. complication is to be watched on. sir.Or a maximum of how many hours when complication sit-in? “A .“Q . the surgery was only successful in intra-operative because the bleeding was stopped. complication sits in.The post-operative level wherein complications set in. the post-operative operation? “A .Which of the two you say or is characterized as successful operation? “A . “Q .Yes. It is the stage of monitoring the patient’s complication.Now. the patient was still alive.In other words. “Q . sometimes it will take several hours if given proper care and medication. the operation was finished. sir. is there a technical. “Q . “Q . “Q .Doctor. medical meaning when you say that an operation has been successful? “A . In this stage. “Q .The post-operative operation.What is the other one? “A . the intra-operative level wherein the operation was performed and was finished.Yes. the lung was worth watching? “A . “Q .How long after operation can complication sit-in? “A . the tube was placed and the surgical procedure warranted for him or already been given him.Yes. the injury to the lung is only seen on the right lung but the left lung is intact? .After 6 hours.

“Q . sir. . “A .Maybe.Has the liver injury anything to do in the difficulty of breathing? “A . meaning. there was a minimal bleeding on the left lung. “Q .But it can maintain life alone? “A . “Q . but on x-ray.’ So. a close tube is designed to maintain the intra-thoracic pressure of the lung which is to be connected into a bottle close tube to aspirate or to maintain or to give aid to the lung and to make it function as if it was a closed chest.But the chances are very small because sole lung do not function dependently when compared to our kidneys. “Q .”(emphasis supplied) “x x x “Q . Your Honor. In anatomy of kidneys. it showed contusion. “Q .The difficulty of breathing which you described as gasping for breath could be traced from the malfunctioning of the lungs? “A .Yes. but our lungs.By that answer doctor. our kidney is located in a very convenient portion of the body. ‘nalanog. sir.If the lungs collapsed.But you will agree with me doctor when I say that a person. specially the left lung. you would like to say that a person can still be alive even if he has a collapsed lung? “A . Your Honor. “Q .In this particular case. but in a very short time only. is very prone to stress because it is very near the heart. This guarding was on his breathing because he does not want to use his other breathing muscle because the pain would come or may sits in.“A .In what way may a malfunctioning lung bring about difficulty in breathing? “A .Because there was a case when one lung is removed but the patient was still alive. “Q .Yes.Yes.The liver injury may just add because of the pain in the diaphragm because the diaphragm was also violated. could survive with only one lung? “A .Yes.And that tube that you installed is to help only the right lung that was injured? “A .

so.Because the left lung as you said was not injured.Why was there a necessity to give him oxygen? “A .No. in liver injuries where pack is applied.” “x x x “Q . it would sustain life unlike kidneys where you can survive? “A .And this administration of oxygen to the patient was done up to the time the patient have undergone surgery is routinary? “A .Because his right lung is already very weak.Yes.You need two lungs to sustain life unlike kidneys where you can still survive with only one kidney? “A . The purpose of that supplemental oxygen is to give the blood real oxygen. the pack could be maintained up to the maximum period of 72 hours.In surgical protocol. . supplemental oxygen is needed to enter his lungs to support the blood circulation. Your Honor. sir. considering the lapse of time from the first operation to the second operation which is three days. “COURT: “Q . If there are signs of progressive bleeding. the maximum period to remove the pack is 72 hours. that gave more optimism to the chances of the patient? “A .Yes. “Q . depending on the clinical evaluation. sir.He was gasping already for air and there was already impending septic vasogenic shock.” (emphasis supplied) “x x x “Q . “Q . but it could also be removed in less than 72 hours.“Q .Why was a there a necessity for oxygen? “A . “Q . if it does warrant oxygen. therefore.I don’t think so.And again. Your Honor.Was the patient under oxygen support at the time his statement was taken? “A .

“Q . we find the same to be insufficient to render his declaration inadmissible.It was a small amount of blood only to normal individuals. nor can the force of such declaration be affected by the circumstances that he died later. Rendor’s assent was with regard to his willingness to give a subsequent statement rather than on the investigator’s vain hope for the declarant’s recovery. even without the questioned written declarations of Rendor. with his heart rate increasing due to the loss of blood from his internal wounds. hours or days after it was inflicted.” (emphasis supplied) The gravity of Rendor’s wounds on his right lung and liver could never be downplayed by defense’ crafty cross examination. which. And even granting for the sake of argument that such a statement is not admissible as a dying declaration. But to a person with extensive blood evacuation. Matias. Matias is genuinely an emanation of the incident for he had then no opportunity to concoct or contrive an untrue version of the attack. With the pain and discomfort from his injured lung and liver. given the depressed state of his mind. . It is labelled as sero sanguinuous fluid. Mallari. is a big amount of blood evacuated? “A .S. There was no active bleeding noted but there was still intra-abdominal evacuation of blood amounting to 200 cc. his spontaneous disclosure of their assailants to Mrs. not pure blood. vs.200 cc. there was no more bleeding noted? “A . there was already a need for a blood transfusion because of the massive bleeding. and that he is in positive and imminent danger of dying sooner or later from the wound. has induced the profound conviction that his life is actually slipping away. for when the patient did finally die his death was due to the wound whose gravity did not diminish from the time he made his declaration until the hour of his death. is likewise admissible as an ante mortem statement.And after the second operation when the pack was already removed. that’s why there was a blood transfusion which consists of chemical fluid.“Q . Rendor’s state of mind was unmistakably on his possible dissolution.” As regards Rendor’s statement that he is to give a supplemental statement in case he recovers.No more. The liver also had blood evacuation. the same may still be admitted as part of res gestae since it was made immediately after the startling occurrence. Rendor’s declaration before Mrs. this Court emphasized that “(T)he credibility of statements made by a person severely wounded rests not only on the serious situation resulting from his wound but also on his physical and mental condition. in whose house they took refuge immediately after the ambush. Now. In the early case of U. and with no medical assistance still in sight.

plus the fact that the natural response of Rendor would have been to seek cover. He also failed to substantiate his claim. Similarly. is by no means an indispensable requirement for the purpose of identifying the former. The lack of precision with which Rendor identified one of the firearms used is of no moment for we cannot expect him to have full knowledge on the matter. by name or both. although helpful. accused-appellant must convincingly prove that it was impossible for him to be . we find the same to be full of holes. Then he claims that Rendor and Pamfilo Quimson did not know each other. He also claims that Rendor’s seat in the ill-fated vehicle prevented him from seeing their assailants. He argues that the result of the police investigation belies Rendor’s statement mentioning an M-14 rifle as one of those used in the ambush. She also testified that they occasionally pass by the Quimson’s in going to the market and would even see accused-appellant. if indeed his visits were infrequent. Accused-appellant’s contention that Rendor doesn’t know the former is likewise not enough to discredit the questioned declarations. by presenting his aunt in whose house he allegedly stayed. there is evidence to the effect that Rendor was seated beside the driver. The evidence he offered is inadequate to support his defense of alibi. We do not accept accused-appellant’s argument that Rendor would not have seen their assailants because he was seated at the back of the driver. Besides. On the other hand. people in rural communities know each other either by face. it is equally natural for Rendor to strive to see the appearance of their attackers and observe the manner the crime was committed. On the other hand. It is quite incredible that accused would only spend a maximum of two (2) hours during his visit to his family in Ligao. Also according to her. that he stayed in Tigaon. the fact that Rendor was seated elsewhere will not prevent him from seeing their attackers. their house is near that of the Quimson’s. hence. In order for us to consider such a defense. While Rendor is originally from Oas and accused-appellant is from Ligao. jurisprudence recognizes that victims of criminal violence have a penchant for seeing the looks. While Rendor and accused-appellant may not have been friends. Aside from seeking cover from the volley of gunshots. the former’s wife testified that they stayed for about three (3) years in Ligao sometime after they got married. it is unlikely that their paths had not crossed during those three (3) years that the Rendor spouses stayed in Ligao. accused-appellant attacks the probative value of the late Raul Rendor’s declarations. Generally. Be that as it may. could not have possibly identified the latter. the degree of closeness or familiarity with the accused-appellant on the part of the witness.In support of his second assigned error. As regards his third assigned error. accused-appellant’s claim that he made himself scarce in Ligao is both unbelievable and unsubstantiated to deserve consideration. We are not convinced. He could not even remember the very few times that he went to Ligao. faces and features of their assailants. Camarines Sur after graduating from high school. Contrary to what accused-appellant argues. No evidence. testimonial or otherwise was ever advanced to establish this.

00considering that the same was properly supported by receipts. More so when these witnesses themselves prove to be unreliable. On its own. we affirm the findings of the trial court and hold accused-appellant Pamfilo Quimson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of Murder.000. All these considered. The corroborative evidence on the alleged drinking session that fateful night is equally unreliable because when such evidence is offered by his friends and relatives.00 will have to be increased to P110. alibi will not hold water.00 as civil indemnity for the heirs of the four victims is hereby awarded. He tempers It down however. The separate award of P30. it took them three (3) hours more or less. Sr. the same is denied with regard to the heirs of the late GLENDA VILLAREAL because the prosecution failed to present evidence. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that when death occurs as a result of a crime the heirs of.at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. to show that the heirs of the deceased are entitled thereto. must be reduced to P50. Sr. Hence. he also admitted that when he was arrested by the police. it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the proximate time of its commission.000. Albay. court failed to award civil indemnity or compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim. an award of P50. the deceased are entitled to be indemnified without need of any proof thereof. Albay takes a good five (5) hours of travel. 1995 he never left.. he did admit subsequently of having a drinking session some 30 meters outside their camp the following night. While he claims that. Moreover. Where there is the least chance for him to be present at the crime scene. accused-appellant also claims that their camp from Ligao. the same will have. the trial. The award of moral damages to the heirs of the late ROMEO MATIAS. accused-appellant’s alibi is already defective.000. As regards the trial court’s award of actual damages. the actual damages awarded to the heirs of the late Romeo Matias. . testimonial or otherwise. RAUL RENDOR. Add to this the camp’s slack policy on monitoring the whereabouts of its soldiersand accused-appellant’s alibi becomes unreliable for it shows that he can easily leave camp unobserved.00 representing burial expenses for the above-mentioned heirs is necessarily deleted for the same reason. when he added that the five (5) hour travel time includes waiting time. to be denied with regard to the heirs of the late CRISALDO GUIMEA. upon returning to camp in the afternoon of August 16. Finally.000. On the other hand. As to the award of damages. in the amount of P50.000. the same is held with extreme suspicion considering the facility by which it may be fabricated or concocted. and GLENDA VILLAREAL since the prosecution failed to offer any evidence to support the allegations of the witnesses claiming actual damages. The same night that Romeo Matias. SR. CRISALDO GUIMBA and RAUL RENDOR while justified. Hence. and his group were ambushed.00 in keeping with present jurisprudence. to reach Ligao. the same should have already been included as part of actual damages in case the latter is permitted. Subsequently though. As regards the award of moral damages.

Jr. SO ORDERED. be forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency.000. SR.00 . No. Puno. upon finality of this decision.as moral damages Heirs of GLENDA VILLAREAL P 50.00 .J.00 .as civil indemnity . and Sandoval-Gutierrez. Accused-appellant is also ordered to pay the following to the heirs of the victims: Heirs of ROMEO MATIAS. WHEREFORE. C. Nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.00 . Pardo. Ynares-Santiago.. P 50. Jr. Davide.000. amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code. De Leon.00 . the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant PANFILO “NOEL” QUIMSON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of murder and imposing the supreme penalty of DEATH is hereby AFFIRMED.000.as moral damages Heirs of RAUL RENDOR P 50. .Four Justices of the Court maintain their position that R. 7659.00 P 50. Quisumbing.. Melo.as moral damages Heirs of CRISALDO GUIMBA P 50.. A.as actual damages P 50. as well as the records of this case. Vitug. Mendoza. concur.00 P 50. Bellosillo.as civil indemnity P 110.00 .000.000.as civil indemnity . let certified copies thereof. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty.000.000. Buena.as civil indemnity In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No.. Panganiban. JJ.000.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.