Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 38
Maddela, Quirino
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

FOR: HOMICIDE

ROLANDO OLARTE ,
Brgy. Dumabato Sur
Maddela, Quirino
(At-large)

Accused.
x-------------- ---------------------------------x

DECISION
The Charge
Rolando Olarte was charged with homicide in an information
filed on June 29, 2009, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about 8:00 oclock in the evening of
March 8, 2009, in Barangay Dumabato Sur,
Municipality of Maddela, Province of Quirino,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
intent to kill and without any just motive, shot one
ROSITA TAAN thereby inflicting upon her gunshots
wounds which directly caused her death.
Immediately after the incident, herein accused surrendered
himself to PO3 Glomar Antonio of the Maddela Police Station,
including a caliber .22 snub nose Smith and Wesson (No serial
number) with three live ammunitions and three spent shells. He
was detained thereat from March 8 to June 30, 2009 as per
certification of P/SINSP Armando B. Tolentino (p. 30-Record).
On later part of June 30, 2009, he was transferred to the
BJMP, Maddela, Quirino (p.27-Record), but the following day, he
was set free upon posting a surety bond (P40,000.00) from the First
Integrated Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc.

On November 3, 2009, the accused pleaded not guilty as

charged with the assistance of his counsel de-parte, Atty. Martin C.
Galapon.
The three settings for pre-trial (March 10, June 2, and
September 1, 2010) did not materialize because herein accused
DECISION
[2/8]
CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

already jumped bail. Thus, on the last setting, the court, on motion
of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Alfredo A. Balajo, Jr., forfeited
the accuseds surety bond and also ordered his arrest.
For failure of the bondsmen (First Integrated Bonding and
Insurance Company, Inc.) to produce the person of the accused
within a reasonable length of time, a judgment on the bond
(P40,000.00) was made by the court on January 19, 2011 (p. 211Record).
The flight of herein accused did not deter this court from
proceeding with the case because trial may proceed even in his
absence. In doing so, the court is guided by the following teachings
of the Supreme Court:
A trial in absentia may be had when the
following requisites are present: (1) that there has
been an arraignment; (2) that the accused has
been notified; and (3) that he fails to appear and
his failure to do so is unjustified (Fiscal Celso M.
Gimenez, et. al. v. Hon. Ramon E. Nazareno, et.
al., G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988).
"Conformably with our decision in People v.
Salas, their escape should have been considered a
waiver of their right to be present at their trial,
and the inability of the court to notify them of the
subsequent hearings did not prevent it from
continuing with their trial. They were to be
deemed to have received notice. The same fact of
their escape made their failure to appear
unjustified because they have, by escaping, placed
themselves beyond the pale and protection of the
law (Mary Helen Estrada v. PP, et. al, G.R. No.
162371, August 25, 2005).

Evidence of the Prosecution

On January 19, 2011 and other dates, APP Balajo presented
the following witnesses to prove the material allegations of the
information:
PABLO TAAN, 81 years old and a resident of Dumabato Sur,
Maddela, Quirino, testified that he is the husband of Rosita Taan.
In the evening of March 8, 2009, he was with his wife at their
house at Dumabato Sur, Maddela, Quirino. Their house was a one
storey structure with an area of about 5 by 4 meters. They do not
have electricity and they use a kerosene lamp, which was on a
DECISION
[3/8]
CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

bench near the door. At around 8 P.M. that evening, the accused
knocked on their door and the witness opened it. The accused
entered their house and shot his wife, who was more than one
meter away from them. The accused shot his wife thrice with a
short gun. She fell down after which, the accused immediately left.
His wife died at the Veterans Regional Hospital, Bayombong, Nueva
Viscaya, for which they incurred expenses totaling P28,894.00
(Exhibit H-17). The ambulance fee amounted to P780.00 (Exhibit
H-21). Their other expenses include funeral services from
Christian J Funeral Homes amounting to P25,000.00 (Exhibit H18), lease of cemetery lot and burial permit amounting to P260.00
(O.R. No. 1384089 from the Municipal Treasurers Office, Maddela,
Quirino), cement and steel bars for the tomb totalling P1,795.00
(Exhibits H-13 and H-14) and her dress, which cost P1,160.00
(Exhibit H-9). The wake lasted for 12 days, but they have no
official receipts for the foods served for such purpose. The witness
identified his sworn statement and the gun used by the accused in
the course of his testimony. He also identified the accused through
his photograph. He had known the latter for a long time and the
accused is a kagawad in their barangay.
RONNIE PIS-O, 39 years old, farmer, and a resident of
Dumabato Sur, Maddela, Quirino, stated that he was lying down
and watching TV with his family in his house at Dumabato Sur,
Maddela, Quirino. The television was quite loud, but he still heard
something that sounded like the piercing of a bamboo. He got up at
around 8 p.m. of March 8, 2009. He heard his brother-in-law Rolly
Taan shouting that their mother Rosita Taan was killed. He got his
rechargeable light and then went to the house of his in-laws which

was 25 to 30 meters away. Upon reaching the house, he saw his

mother-in-law lying at the edge of the door. There was a lamp about
3 meters from her. His father-in-law, Pablo Taan, was standing
behind her mother-in-law. His father-in-law told him that her
mother-in-law was shot by Kagawad Olarte. The witness shook his
mother-in-law and she moaned. He then ran to get a tricycle. The
witness identified his sworn statement in the course of his
testimony. He had known the accused for about 20 years and he
was able to identify him through his photograph.
ROLLY TAAN, 46 years old, a carpenter, and residing at
Dumabato Sur, Maddela, Quirino, averred that he was cooking at
their kitchen at around 8 p.m. of March 8, 2009. He heard a gun
shot followed by his mothers shout- Arayatendak. Patayen dakon
(Please help me. I will be killed). Then, he heard another gun shot
coming from his mothers house, which was about 25 meters away.
When he was about to run to give assistance, his wife embraced
him so he was not able to leave. Ronnie Pis-o and his companions
carried his mother and when they were already in front of the
DECISION
[4/8]
CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

witness house, he also helped bring his mother to the tricycle.

They brought her to the Diduyon District Hospital where she was
attended by Dr. Gamino. Thereat, he asked his mother who shot
her and she retorted that it was Kagawad Rolly Olarte. Naser
Inusencio was present when his mother revealed her aggressor.
Subsequently, they brought her to San Marcos Hospital for the
needed x-ray procedure. Thereafter, they transferred her to the
Veterans Hospital at Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, where she died
after being confined for four days. He personally knew the accused
and he was able to identify him through his photograph.
JESS REGIE TAAN, 21 years old, hardware employee and a
resident of Dumabato Sur, Maddela, Quirino, narrated that he was
at home when he heard 3 gun shots followed by a commotion
emanating from the house of his grandparents, Pablo and Rosita
Taan. Their houses were 10 meters apart. He ran at the back of
their house and there he met Kagawad Olarte. They were facing
each other and there was light coming from their kitchen. Kagawad
Olarte was armed with .38 caliber gun in his right hand. He
stopped telling the witness not to meddle, that he is a kagawad and
that he will surrender. Kagawad Olarte also told him that he was
sorry for what had happened. The witness reached his
grandmothers house where he saw her bathed with blood near

their door. She was lying down with her hands embracing herself.
She uttered- Pinabasol dak lang nga manggagamud (They are
accusing me of being a witch). His grandfather was shocked and
just remained standing two feet away from his spouse. The house
was a little bright because there was a gas lamp. The witness ran
towards his uncles house shouting for help. They went back to his
grandparents house and brought his grandmother to the hospital.
He went to their barangay captain to report the incident. He
identified his sworn statement in the course of his testimony. He
knew the accused well and he was able to identify him through his
photograph.
During the continuation of trial on February 15, 2012, APP
Balajo manifested that he will dispensed with the testimony of Dr.
Jaime Padre because as per information from the OIC of the
Veterans Hospital, the said doctor is no longer connected with the
hospital and he does not know his present address. With this
predicament, the public prosecutor manifested that he will just be
presenting on the next hearing (March 21) a certified copy of the
death certificate of Rosita Taan.
On such setting, Atty. Galapon was not in court and for his
absence, he was fined P200.00. Neither did the public prosecutor
present a certified copy of the death certificate of Mrs. Taan. Thus,
the trial was reset to May 16, 2012 for the presentation of defense
DECISION
[5/8]
CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

evidence.
Unfortunately, the defense counsel was again absent on said
date due to a prior court engagement. For this reason, the public
prosecutor moved that the accused who had already jumped bail
and who is being tried in absentia be considered to have waived his
right to present evidence arguing that being now a fugitive from
justice, he losses his legal standing in court, including his right to
present evidence. The court granted the motion in the light of the
ruling of the Supreme Court in Fiscal Celso Gimenez, et. al., v.
Hon. Ramon Nazareno, G.R. No. L-37933 dated April 15, 1988,
which reads:
An escapee who has been duly tried in
absentia waives his right to present evidence on
his behalf and to confront and cross examine
witnesses who testified against him.

On August 15, 2012, the prosecution rested their case with

four witnesses and several pieces of documentary evidence
consisting of the sworn statement of Pablo Taan (Exhibit A), sworn
statement of Reggie Taan (Exhibit B), sworn statement of Rolly
Taan and Ronnie Pis-o (Exhibit D), Certificate of Death of Rosita
Taan (Exhibit E), handgun and its .22 caliber ammunitions
(Exhibits G G-3), and several receipts of expenses (Exhibit H
in seriatim).
Although accused-Olarte already jumped bail and his present
whereabouts is unknown, this alone will not constitute moral
certainty for his conviction. In the case of Gimenez (op cit), the
Supreme Court also ruled that he is still presumed innocent. A
judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence
presented in court. Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
Issues
Thus, the issues for resolution here are: 1] Whether or not the
accused is guilty as charged; and 2] Whether or not the heirs of the
deceased Rosita Taan are entitled to damages.
Discussion and Resolution
The elements of homicide are as follows: 1) a person was
killed; 2) the accused killed him without any justifying
circumstance; 3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed; and 4) the killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
DECISION
[6/8]
CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

infanticide. (Rey A. Villamor vs. PP, G.R. No. 182156, November

25, 2009).
After a careful evaluation of the pieces of evidence adduced by
the prosecution, both testimonial and documentary, the court is
convinced that it has established the presence of the foregoing
elements.
There is overwhelming evidence to prove the first and second
elements, i.e., a person was killed and the accused killed him
without any justifying circumstance. Pablo Taan, the widower of

the deceased Rosita Taan, testified that he was the one who opened
the door when the accused knocked at their door in the evening of
March 8, 2009. The latter fired three successive shots at his wife
who was more than one meter away from her aggressor. Then, the
accused immediately left. For his part, Rolly Taan, son of the
deceased, stated that he was one of those who brought his mother
to the Diduyon Hospital where she was treated by Dr. Gamino.
While at the hospital, he asked his mother who shot her and she
replied that it was Kagawad Rolly Olarte. His mother died after four
days confinement at the Veterans Hospital. Another relative of the
deceased, her grandson, Jess Regie Taan, also gave a
corroborative declaration on the identity of the culprit. According to
this witness, when he ran towards his grandparents house, he met
at the back portion of their house the accused who was holding a
gun on his right hand. The latter told him not to meddle because
he is a kagawad, that he will surrender and that he is sorry for
what had happened. The death of Rosita was also complemented by
her Death Certificate (Exhibit E).
Rositas dying declaration to her son, Rolly, identifying herein
accused as her aggressor is admissible in evidence because it
complies with the following requirements for its admissibility: (1)
the declaration must concern the crime and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant's death; (2) it was made at a time
when the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending
death; (3) the declarant would be competent to testify; and (4) the
declaration is offered in any case in which the decedent is the
victim. (PP v. Rosalino Flores, G.R. No. 129284, March 17,
2000). Undoubtedly, the herein dying declaration of Rosita pertains
to the crime of which the accused is charged because she identified
her aggressor who shot her several times on account of her being
an alleged witch. It was also made at a time when the declarant
was under the consciousness of an impending death and in fact,
she died four days thereafter. The declarant would be competent to
testify because at the time of the incident, she can perceive and
make known her perception to others. The declaration was brought
about by the testimony of Rolly Taan who testified for the
DECISION
[7/8]
CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

prosecution on the circumstances surrounding the death of his

mother, the victim in this case.
It will not matter if the prosecution witnesses are all relatives
of the victim because mere relationship to the victim does not ipso

facto make them bias witnesses. In a related case, the Supreme

Court ruled- Family relationship does not by itself render an
eyewitness' testimony inadmissible or less credible or devoid of
probative value. On the contrary, YYY and XXX, being blood
relatives of the deceased, would not just indiscriminately impute
the crime to anybody, but would necessarily identify the malefactor
properly in order to secure the conviction of the real culprit and
obtain justice. (PP v. Francisco Buban, G.R. No. 170471, May
11, 2007).
The third and fourth elements are also present here. As a
rule, no further evidence is necessary to prove the accuseds intent
to kill inasmuch as this is already presumed and this remains
unrebutted. The present case is not for murder because no
qualifying circumstance was alleged in the information. Neither is
this a case for parricide considering that the accused and the
victim are not related, nor infanticide since the victim is not less
than 3 days old.
The defense of the accused during the pre-trial conference is
denial; hence, it is clear that he did not invoke any justifying
circumstance for killing the victim.
On the issue of damages, the heirs of the victim had
substantiated with receipts their actual expenses for the
hospitalization, wake and burial of their loved one in the total
amount of P57,889.00.
Moreover, in cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of
P75,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 are awarded
automatically, without need of allegation and proof other than the
death of the victim. (PP v. Restituto Carandang, et. al., G.R. No.
175926, July 6, 2011).
In fine, the prosecution has carried out its burden of proving
the guilt of the accused with moral certainty.
Fallo
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered finding ROLANDO OLARTE GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of homicide and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of twelve (12) years of prisin mayor as minimum to twenty
DECISION
[8]
CRIM. CASE NO. 38-342

(20) years of reclusin temporal as maximum. However, his

preventive imprisonment shall be fully credited to him in the
service of his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
Accused is ordered to pay the heirs of Rosita Taan the amount
of: 1] P57,889.00 as actual damages; 2] P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity; and 3] P50,000.00 as moral damages, or a total of
182, 889.00, all with interest of 6% per annum from the filing of
the information until finality of the decision, and 12% per annum
from finality of judgment until fully paid.
With the accused having jumped bail, let a warrant of arrest
be issued against him furnishing all law enforcement agencies of
the government with a copy thereof for his immediate capture.
SO ORDERED.
Maddela, Quirino, August 17, 2012.

MENRADO V. CORPUZ
Executive Judge