You are on page 1of 31

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

should have reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the possible consequences of his act. Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. Dino Gonzalez. The use of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes committed. The testimony of prosecution witness contradicts the appellant’s pretense of voluntary surrender. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. pleaded by the defense. passion and obfuscation. were not convincingly proved and none can be considered in the imposition of penalties. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender. the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim. 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. unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the part of the latter. . the plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is likewise devoid of merit. Finally. 2. 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 intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used. 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 appellant’s use of a gun. although not deliberately sought nor employed in the shooting. 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. The sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case.preconceived by the accused.

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

mobile phone deals. case digests. 117954(April 27. 2000) The appellant shot the victim who later died. is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as contemplated by law. After charges were filed and his commanding officer was told of the incident.R. 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. free legal opinion. laptop computers. online jobs. best law firms in Mindanao . he was ordered not to leave camp. In this case. case digests Philippines. where he surrendered.Case Digest on People v. No. it was appellant’s commanding officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court. case digests of supreme court decisions. gadgets. Being restrained by one’s superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to the investigating authorities concerned. Acuram G.

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

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. or at least. that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help. can be smelt and directed even from a distance. the rescuers had to carry a light with them. by the driver and the conductor themselves. through is driver and its conductor. and that because it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning). the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. this for the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back. the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted. . the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was. What is more. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should. specially over a large area. made not only by the passengers. According to the witness. gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus. the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected. 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. They. and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available. as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person. In the present case under the circumstances obtaining in the same.predecessor. this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled. but most probably. we do not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus. the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back and forth. 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. In other words.

and inquired what the commotion was all about. Trifona immediately went to the house of her mother. Appellant thereupon became angry and began to choke his mother. defendant-appellant. who did not pity her. speaking in a guttural voice which could hardly be understood. with a brother and a sister. as minimum to 17 years. . San Remigio. BARRERA. Pilar Edaño. Cebu. Teofilo Mendoza. appellant herein. The screams and shouts attracted the attention of Trifona Demiar who has living in a house nearby. as maximum. Trifona Demiar then and there told appellant to release their mother. Appellant returned shortly before sunset and. near the stove in the kitchen. Meliton Magdadaro. Like Trifona. 12-year old daughter of Trifona Demiar. Pacita Catanda. as she used to do. herein appellant. for appellant. At about 1:30 p. Cebu. reprimanded her. to pay indemnity in the sum of P4. No. At about noontime on Friday. 4 months.00 to the heirs of the deceased Pilar Edaño. He immediately went to said house. 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. told Magdadaro that she had been choked by her son. August 5. about 30 yards away. had not prepared any food. Jr. went to the house of her grandmother (Pilar Edaño). CLIMACO DEMIAR.m. barrio Tambongon. who was then sitting near a stove.000.: Appeal1 from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu(in Crim. It appears that appellant Climaco Demiar and his wife lived in the same house with his mother Pilar Edaño in the sitio of Lacaron. 1955. accompanied by his wife. J. and 1 day of reclusion temporal. vs. and to pay the costs. barrio lieutenant of Tambongon. Appellant did as he was told and went upstairs. because she had been very busy grinding corn. Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Crispin V. 1960 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. plaintiff-appellee. Pilar Edaño's daughter. making her and Pacita Catanda scream.R. whose house was only about 15 yards from that Pilar Edaño.SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.. Bautista for appellee. The latter explained that she was notable to cook their food. appellant who was a gambler. finding that his mother. after spouses left. Pilar Edaño. Case No. L-15130 May 31. choking their mother Pilar Edaño. V4961). was also attracted by the shouts for help and the commotion in the house of the latter. went to the market place at barrio Tambongon. whereupon she saw her brother.

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

but also because it is intelligible as well. We are in entire accord with the following observations of the trial court on the point. Besides. People vs. Suffice it to say. appellant's sister. although a child of tender age at the time she took the witness stand. Appellant points to an apparent contradiction in Pacita Catanda's testimony. believes that her testimony is admissible in evidence against the accused. the spouses had the house of appellant demolished and appropriated the materials thereof. The Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of Pacita Catanda. chief of police of San Remigio. who bore a grudge against him. which observed and sized up said witness. because he opposed the mortgage of a land belonging to their mother. 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. (People vs. Alembra. who investigated appellant.. and Telesforo Pestaño. suffice it also to state that said witness heard. 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. The Court. while on direct examination she said that she saw appellant choke her grandmother in the latter's house. there is the testimony of Trifona Demiar. was intelligent enough to convey what she perceived on the date in question. on cross-examination. who actually saw the choking of her grandmother. which are corroborated by those of Meliton Magdadaro. straightforward. who also saw appellant choke their mother. who. and that later. Santas Demiar and her husband mortgaged the land to Juanito Pepito for P250. that the trial court.00.) But apart from Pacita Catanda's testimony. responsible to interrogatories. appellant's sister. Bustos. An examination of the testimony of Pacita Catanda. contends that the trial court in relying upon the allegedly unreliable testimony of Pacita Catanda. stated that she did not see appellant in her grandmother's house. appellant's cousin. malicious. and devoid of evasion or any semblance of shuffling. however. but also the shouts of her daughter Pacita Catanda. by appellant. the 12-years old grandchild of the deceased Pilar Edaño and niece of appellant and Trifona Demiar. 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. The defense. that after appellant was detained. therefore. not only because it is rational. 578. and fabricated by his sister Santas Demiar and her husband Lope Mayol. that the accusation against him is false. and the supposedly improbable testimony of Trifona Demiar. it is a matter of common . 45 Phil. 55 Phil. gave credence to her testimony. 9. an intelligent child is as a rule the best witness in the world. disclosed that said witness. 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. the deceased Pilar Edaño..never regained it. Needless to say. not only her mother's screams.

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

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

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

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

3388 for Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder.00 - Moral Damages P 30. Branch 11. PAMFILO QUIMSON. 1997 of the Regional Trial Court.000.00 - Moral Damages P 30.00 - Actual Damages P 150. Albay. a.000.000. P 50. SR.000.00 - Burial “HEIRS OF RAUL RENDOR P 50. th “WHEREFORE.00 - Actual Damages P 150.00 - Actual Damages P 150.000. as amended.000.000. of evident premeditation without any mitigating circumstance.00 - Moral Damages P 30. the court finds the accused. in Criminal Case No.000.00 - Burial “HEIRS OF GLENDA VILLAREAL P 50. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MULTIPLE MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248.00 - Moral Damages P 30.000. the dispositive portion of which reads.PER CURIAM: Before us on automatic review is the decision dated June 30.000.000. with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and generic aggravating circumstance.k. and hereby imposes upon said accused the penalty of DEATH. NOEL QUIMSON.00 - Actual Damages P 150. and to indemnify the legal heirs of the victims sums of money as follows: “HEIRS OF ROMEO MATIAS.00 - Burial “HEIRS OF CRISALDO GUIMBA P 50. Ligao.a.000. in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. 5 Judicial Region.00 - Burial .

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

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

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

.there was a round wound below the right scapular area . He also points to the testimony of Dr. Rendor’s physician. Barrosa. Ligao.Time of Incident: 8:30 P.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. At first glance. ambulatory . “BRIEF HISTORY: . “x x x “CONDITION OF PATIENT: .Nature of Incident: Ambushed . A thorough study of Dr. however.Cardiac Rate: 120/min. no guarding “IMPRESSION: .conscious. Albay “Physical Examination revealed the following findings: .Abdomen was flat .Place of Incident: Centro.intra. 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. would prove the contrary.other quadrant soft. it would seem that appellant’s argument may have some basis. Barrosa’s testimony. admitting that Rendor was quite fine.with abdominal tenderness at the right upper quadrant .another round wound through and through at the back of his leg .abdominal injury” .Blood Pressure: 100/80 . coherent.M.intra-thoracic injury .

Close tube thoracotomy (right) F32 rectal tube revealing a pint of fresh blood and evacuating around .midline incision carried from skin down to peritoneum . and another one.This 2. The third wound. lacerated wound was seen at the anterior surface of right lobe of liver “b) stellate-shaped laceration around 7.application of 7 square packs surrounding the liver was done . right and left part.0 cm. There was a wound there of about 2.Operative Findings of the first operation of Raul Rendor: .Will you explain in layman’s language the findings you have read? “A . The liver was sutured.recovery of slug inside abdominal cavity .the patient was placed under general anesthesia .5 cm. in greatest diameter noted surrounded by necrotic liver tissues postero lateral surface of the (right) lobe of liver . and metal patching was done by application of square .5”cm. The operation done in the diaphragm was repairing.“x x x “A.around 750 cc of clotted blood was evacuated “a) 2.0 cm.0 cm.5 laceration of the right lobe of liver. The character of the wound the edges were rugged on the anterior surface of the liver. 2. 2.0 liters of blood consisting of clotted and nonclotted was found or evacuated .close “Q .a 2. perforation on the right diaphragm. perforation of the right diaphragm was also seen .repair of diaphragmatic laceration was done using chronic I straumatic needle .bleeding persisted . also a round wound at the back portion of the liver which is larger than the one on the lungs.repairing liver laceration using parenchyma suture of metal patching was done . The diaphragm is the one separating our abdominal cavity from the chest cavity.upon opening the abdominal wall. Our liver consists of 2 parts.

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

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

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

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

“Q .The difficulty of breathing which you described as gasping for breath could be traced from the malfunctioning of the lungs? “A .But it can maintain life alone? “A . Your Honor. “Q .“A . our kidney is located in a very convenient portion of the body. there was a minimal bleeding on the left lung. sir. meaning. you would like to say that a person can still be alive even if he has a collapsed lung? “A . “Q . Your Honor.By that answer doctor. “Q . In anatomy of kidneys.”(emphasis supplied) “x x x “Q .Has the liver injury anything to do in the difficulty of breathing? “A . specially the left lung.Maybe. but our lungs.If the lungs collapsed. is very prone to stress because it is very near the heart. “Q .’ So. 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.Yes.Because there was a case when one lung is removed but the patient was still alive.The liver injury may just add because of the pain in the diaphragm because the diaphragm was also violated. sir. . but in a very short time only.And that tube that you installed is to help only the right lung that was injured? “A .But you will agree with me doctor when I say that a person. “Q . “A . could survive with only one lung? “A . it showed contusion.In what way may a malfunctioning lung bring about difficulty in breathing? “A .In this particular case. “Q . 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. ‘nalanog.Yes. but on x-ray.Yes.Yes.

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

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

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

1995 he never left.00 will have to be increased to P110. As regards the trial court’s award of actual damages.00 representing burial expenses for the above-mentioned heirs is necessarily deleted for the same reason.000. He tempers It down however. The separate award of P30. the same should have already been included as part of actual damages in case the latter is permitted. The same night that Romeo Matias. 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. While he claims that. when he added that the five (5) hour travel time includes waiting time.000. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that when death occurs as a result of a crime the heirs of. Sr. Moreover. it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the proximate time of its commission. to reach Ligao. On its own. Sr. testimonial or otherwise.at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. it took them three (3) hours more or less. As regards the award of moral damages.000. upon returning to camp in the afternoon of August 16. the same is held with extreme suspicion considering the facility by which it may be fabricated or concocted. the deceased are entitled to be indemnified without need of any proof thereof. Subsequently though. On the other hand. SR.. 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.000. he did admit subsequently of having a drinking session some 30 meters outside their camp the following night. court failed to award civil indemnity or compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim. the same is denied with regard to the heirs of the late GLENDA VILLAREAL because the prosecution failed to present evidence. to be denied with regard to the heirs of the late CRISALDO GUIMEA. to show that the heirs of the deceased are entitled thereto. Where there is the least chance for him to be present at the crime scene. The award of moral damages to the heirs of the late ROMEO MATIAS. alibi will not hold water. the same will have. Albay. accused-appellant’s alibi is already defective. All these considered. the actual damages awarded to the heirs of the late Romeo Matias. More so when these witnesses themselves prove to be unreliable. we affirm the findings of the trial court and hold accused-appellant Pamfilo Quimson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of Murder. Finally. and his group were ambushed. Albay takes a good five (5) hours of travel. the trial.00considering that the same was properly supported by receipts. CRISALDO GUIMBA and RAUL RENDOR while justified. As to the award of damages. . RAUL RENDOR. and GLENDA VILLAREAL since the prosecution failed to offer any evidence to support the allegations of the witnesses claiming actual damages. must be reduced to P50.000.00 as civil indemnity for the heirs of the four victims is hereby awarded. in the amount of P50. Hence.00 in keeping with present jurisprudence. accused-appellant also claims that their camp from Ligao. he also admitted that when he was arrested by the police. an award of P50. Hence.

. C.00 . Pardo.as actual damages P 50. upon finality of this decision. amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Buena. Panganiban. Jr.as civil indemnity P 50. 7659.000.. Vitug. Mendoza. Puno.000.as civil indemnity P 50.00 .00 . Bellosillo. .as moral damages Heirs of GLENDA VILLAREAL P 50.as civil indemnity P 110. Quisumbing. SO ORDERED. Accused-appellant is also ordered to pay the following to the heirs of the victims: Heirs of ROMEO MATIAS.as civil indemnity In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. be forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency. Ynares-Santiago.000. 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.00 .000.J.. and Sandoval-Gutierrez. P 50. WHEREFORE. as well as the records of this case.00 . Davide. concur. Jr.00 .000.000. JJ. Melo. De Leon. let certified copies thereof. SR.00 .. 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.000.as moral damages Heirs of RAUL RENDOR P 50. A.000.Four Justices of the Court maintain their position that R. No.as moral damages Heirs of CRISALDO GUIMBA P 50.00 .