Professional Documents
Culture Documents
II- B
FACTS
This is a consolidated criminal case nos. (1)95-17070- Murder; (2)95-17071- Homicide against the
accused-appellant, who killed Edmund Prayco and Leopoldo Guiro respectively on March 16, 1995 in
the Municipality of Murcia, Negros Occidental. The accused appellant has said to have used a firearm,
with treachery, with intent to kill and taking advantage of nighttime, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot the victims.
On July 2, 2003, the RTC of Bacolod City convicted the accused-appellant, Jose Pepito Combate in
crime of Homicide with the penalty of RECLUSION TEMPORAL in its medium period and payment of
indemnity, compensatory damages, reimbursement of burial expenses to the heirs of Guiro & moral
damages; and in the crime of Murder with the penalty of Reclusion perpetua and payment of
indemnity and compensatory damages to the heirs of Prayco.
On January 30, 2008, the CA affirmed the assailed judgment of the lower court and modified the
award of damages which deleted the compensatory damages in both cases thus, awarding
exemplary damages of P25, 000.00 to heirs of Leopoldo Guiro and awarding the same to heirs of
Edmund Prayco.
The judgment of the RTC- Bacolod which was affirmed by the CA was then questioned by accused-
appelant, Jose Combate that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crimes of homicide and
murder, despite the fact that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of the
inconsistencies of the testimonies of the witness of the prosecution and those inconsistencies will
erode the credibility of the witness. The accused-appellant said that there was a failure of the lower
court to.
ISSUE/s
Whether or not the RTC of Bacolod erred in convicting the accused of the crime homicide & Murder
despite the fact that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
NO. The following doctrines were then referred to by the court in its decision.
1|P a g e
ZOSA, Imelda B.
II- B
assessment, absent any indication that the lower court has overlooked some material facts or
gravely abused its discretion.
The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of the crime and that he
positively identified [the accused] as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.
The court then stated WHAT MAY BE RECOVERED WHEN DEATH OCCURS.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for
the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary
damages; (5) attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper
cases.[10][59] InPeople v. Tubongbanua,[11][60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be
applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several
cases such asMendoza v. People,[12][61] People v. Buban,[13][62] People v. Guevarra,[14][63] and People v.
Regalario.[15][64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per
annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or
compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of
judgment until fully paid.
2|P a g e