Mitigating Circumstances

Mitigating Circumstances
PEOPLE vs. URAL The trial court fittingly deplored the half-hearted manner in which the prosecution
G.R. No. L-30801 March 27, 1974 (represented by Fiscal Roque and the private prosecutor, Delfin Agbu) handled the
AQUINO, J.: case. It bewailed the prosecution's failure to present as witnesses Juanito de la
Serna and Ernesto Ogoc, the detention prisoners who saw the burning of Napola.
This is an appeal of defendant Domingo Ural from the decision of Judge Vicente G. They had executed a joint affidavit which was one of the bases of the information for
Ericta of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, convicting him of murder, murder.1
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of
Felix Napola in the sum of twelve thousand pesos and to pay the costs (Criminal It noted that Rufina Paler, the victim's widow, who was present in court, was a vital
Case No. 3280). witness who should have been presented as a witness to prove the victim's dying
declaration or his statements which were part of the res gestae.2
The judgment of conviction was based on the testimony of Brigido Alberto, a twenty-
six year old former detention prisoner in Buug, Zamboanga del Sur. He had been In this appeal appellant's three assignment of error may be condensed into the issue
accused of murder and then set at liberty on June 9, 1966 after posting bail. He of credibility or the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to prove his guilt
went to Barrio Camongo, Dumalinao where his father resided. On July 31, 1966, he beyond reasonable doubt.
intended to go to his residence at Barrio Upper Lamari, Buug but night overtook him His story is that at around nine o'clock in the evening of July 31, 1966 he was in the
in the town. He decided to sleep in the Buug municipal building where there would municipal jail on guard duty. He heard a scream for help from Napola. He entered
be more security. the cell and found Napola's shirt in flames. With the assistance of Ernesto Ogoc and
Upon arrival in the municipal building at around eight o'clock, he witnessed an Anecio Siton, Ural removed Napola's shirt. Ural did not summon a doctor because,
extraordinary occurrence. He saw Policeman Ural (with whom he was already according to Napola, the burns were not serious. Besides, he (Ural) was alone in the
acquainted) inside the jail. Ural was boxing the detention prisoner, Felix Napola. As a municipal building.
consequence of the fistic blows, Napola collapsed on the floor. Ural, the tormentor, Felicisima Escareal, Ogoc's common-law wife, whom the trial court branded "as a
stepped on his prostrate body. complete liar", testified that she heard Napola's scream for help. She saw that
Ural went out of the cell. After a short interval, he returned with a bottle. He poured Napola's shirt was burning but she did not know how it happened to be burned. She
its contents on Napola's recumbent body. Then, he ignited it with a match and left said that Ural and Siton removed the shirt of Napola and put out the fire.
the cell. Napola screamed in agony. He shouted for help. Nobody came to succor Teofilo Matugas, a policeman, declared that he was relieved as guard by Ural at
him. eight-thirty in the evening of July 31st. Matugas denied that Alberio was in the
Much perturbed by the barbarity which he had just seen, Alberto left the municipal municipal building at eight o'clock.
building. Before his departure, Ural cautioned him: "You better keep quiet of what I The trial court held that Ural's denials cannot prevail over the positive testimony of
have done" (sic). Alberto did not sleep anymore that night. From the municipal Alberio. It observed that Ural's alleged act of removing Napola's burning shirt was at
building, he went to the crossing, where the cargo trucks passed. He hitchhiked in a most an indication that he was "belatedly alarmed by the consequence of his evil
truck hauling iron ore and went home. act" but would not mean that he was not the incendiary.
Doctor Luzonia R. Bakil, the municipal health officer, certified that the thirty-year old Appellant Ural (he was thirty-four years old in March, 1969), in assailing the
victim, whom she treated twice, sustained second-degree burns on the arms, neck, credibility of Alberio, pointed out that he was not listed as a prosecution witness and
left side of the face and one-half of the body including the back (Exh. A). She that he was convicted of murder.
testified that his dermis and epidermis were burned. If the burns were not properly
treated, death would unsue from toxemia and tetanus infection. "Without any Those circumstances would not preclude Alberio from being a credible witness. It
medical intervention", the burns would cause death", she said. She explained that, should be noted that the accused was a policeman. Ordinarily, a crime should be
because there was water in the burnt area, secondary infection would set in, or investigated by the police. In this case, there was no police investigation. The crime
there would be complications. was investigated by a special counsel of the fiscal's office. That might explain why it
was not immediately discovered that Alberio was an eyewitness of the atrocity
Napola died on August 25, 1966. The sanitary inspector issued a certificate of death perpetrated by Ural.
indicating "burn" as the cause of death (Exh. B).
CRMINAL LAW REVIEW │CASES │ AUF SOL A.Y. 2017-18 CLARISA ANNE S. AGAPITO │1
The testimonies of Felicisima Escareal, Ogoc's common-law wife, and Policeman The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position
Matugas are compatible with the prosecution's theory that Ural burned Napola's (Par. 1, Art. 14, Revised Penal Code). He could not have maltreated Napola if he was
shirt. Ultimately, the factual issue is: who should be given credence, Alberio or Ural? not a policeman on guard duty. Because of his position, he had access to the cell
As already stated, the trial court which had the advantage of seeing their demeanor where Napola was confined. The prisoner was under his custody. "The policeman,
and behavior on the witness stand, chose to believe Alberio. This Court, after a who taking advantage of his public position maltreats a private citizen, merits no
searching scrutiny of the whole record, does not find any justification for disbelieving judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are surely not
Alberio. appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law protects the
police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just as
This case is covered by article 4 of the Revised Penal code which provides that effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police." U.S. vs. Pabalan, 37
"criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a Phil. 352).
felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended". The presumption is "that a person intends the ordinary consequences of But the trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance "that the offender
his voluntary act" (Sec. 5[c], Rule 131, Rules of Court). had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed" (Par. 3, Art. 13,
Revised Penal Code). It is manifest from the proven facts that appellant Ural had no
The rationale of the rule in article 4 is found in the doctrine that "el que es causa de intent to kill Napola. His design was only to maltreat him may be because in his
la causa es causa del mal causado" (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of drunken condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside the detention cell.
the evil caused)."Conforme a dicha doctrina no alteran la relacion de causalidad las When Ural realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed Napola
condiciones preexistentes (como las condiciones patologicasdel lesionado, la to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
predisposicion del ofendido, la constitucion fisica del herido, etc.); ni las condiciones
sobrevenidas (como el tetanos, la pulmonia, o la gangrena sobrevenidos a Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating,
consequencia de la herida)" (1 Cuello Calon, Codigo Penal, 12th Ed., 1968, p. 335- circumstance of abuse of his official position. The trial court properly imposed the
336). penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for murder
(Arts. 64[4] and 248, Revised Penal Code).
The similar rule in American jurisprudence is that "if the act of the accused was the
cause of the cause of death, no more is required" (40 C.J.S. 854). So, where during Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the same is affirmed with costs against
a quarrel, the accused struck the victim with a lighted lamp, which broke and fell to the appellant.
the floor, causing the oil to ignite and set fire to the rug, and, in the course of the
scuffle, which ensued on the floor, the victim's clothes caught fire, resulting in burns So ordered.
from which he died, there was a sufficient causal relation between the death and the
acts of the accused to warrant a conviction of homicide (Williams vs. U.S., 20 Fed.
2nd 269, 40 C.J.S. 854, note 90).
There is a rule that "an individual who unlawfully inflicts wounds upon another
person, which result in the death of the latter, is guilty of the crime of homicide, and
the fact that the injured person did not receive proper medical attendance does not
affect the criminal responsibility" (U.S. vs. Escalona, 12 Phil. 54). In
the Escalona case, the victim was wounded on the wrist. It would not have caused
death had it been properly treated. The victim died sixty days after the infliction of
the wound. It was held that lack of medical care could not be attributed to the
wounded man. The person who inflicted the wound was responsible for the result
thereof.
The crime committed by appellant Ural was murder by means of fire (incendio) (Par.
3, Art. 248, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Masin, 64 Phil. 757; U.S. vs. Burns, 41
Phil. 418, 432, 440).3
G.R. No. 125053. March 25, 1999] In the morning of May 15, 1995, Dr. Maria Teresa Tarlengco, a dentist by profession,
was at her clinic at the third floor of the Hermanos Building, Bicutan, Paraaque,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER CAA Metro Manila, when a man entered and inquired about the cost of tooth
LEONOR, accused-appellant. extraction. After Dr. Tarlengco quoted her professional fee, the man, who was later
on identified as Christopher Leonor, said that he would come back and then left in a
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
hurry. Minutes later, Leonor came back[,] and Dr. Tarlengco told him to take a seat
In the decision[1] of 22 March 1996 in Criminal Case No. 95-212, the Regional Trial and wait. Dr. Tarlengco was preparing her dental instruments when Leonor barged
Court of Paraaque, Branch 274, found accused-appellant Christopher Caa Leonor in and demanded money. Dr. Tarlengco told Leonor that her money [was] on the
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced table. On hearing this, Leonor stabbed Dr. Tarlengco, grabbed her watch and ran
him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as away. Dr. Tarlengco struggled out of the clinic and saw the man running out of the
death indemnity; P44,318 as actual damages; P2 million as moral damages; building, Dr. Tarlengco shouted for help.
and P50,000 as attorneys fees.
Reynaldo Baquilod, building security guard, heard Dr. Tarlengco shouting, Tulungan
CHRISTOPHER was charged in an information [2] whose accusatory portion reads as ninyo ako, sinaksak ako ng taong iyon. Baquilod noticed that Dr. Tarlengco was
follows: referring to the man running out of the building, coming from upstairs. Baquilod
chased Leonor up to Daang Hari Street where he was joined by traffic policeman
That on or about the 15th day of May 1995, in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Luis Galeno who was alerted by people running after a person with bloodied
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- shirt. When Galeno and Baquilod caught up with Leonor, Baquilod grabbed Leonors
named accused, with intent to gain and against the will of complainant Ma. Teresa hand and took therefrom a Titus wristwatch and P900 cash. When queried, Leonor
Tarlengco and by means of force, violence and intimidation employed upon the readily answered, Sir, hindi ko naman gusto po ito. Ginawa ko lang ito dahil
person of said complainant did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kailangan ng pamilya ko. Leonor was brought to the Paraaque Police Block Station,
divest her cash money worth P900.00 and Titus wrist watch valued at an PO3 Interia who was instructed to investigate proceeded to Dr. Tarlengcos clinic,
undetermined amount, belonging to said Ma. Teresa Tarlengco, to the damage and where they saw, among other[ ] [things], a bloodied balisong (fan knife) at the
prejudice of the latter, in the aforementioned amount; that on the occasion of the ground floor of the Hermanos building. Baquilod turned over the watch and money
said Robbery, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, without justifiable he took from Leonor to Interia. Thereafter, Galeno and Interia returned to the police
reason, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and station where they were interrogated.
stab said Ma. Teresa Tarlengco, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious stab
wounds which caused her death. Dr. Tarlengco was brought to the South Super Highway Medical Center where she
underwent an emergency operation for a stab wound on her chest. After the
At his arraignment on 14 June 1995, CHRISTOPHER entered a plea of not guilty. [3] operation, Dr. Tarlengcos father, with the doctors permission, was allowed to talk to
his daughter inside the operating room. Although Dr. Tarlengco was gasping for
It is undisputed that on 15 May 1995 at the Hermanos Building in General Santos breath, she spoke to her father, viz:
Avenue, Bicutan Extension, Paraaque City, at around 11:30 a.m., CHRISTOPHER
stabbed dentist Dr. Maria Teresa Tarlengco, which wound ultimately led to her Q: So were you able to talk with your daughter while in the Operating Room? What
death. That much is admitted by CHRISTOPHER. The prosecution and the defense did she say, if any, Mr. Tarlengco?
differ, however, in the circumstances surrounding the incident.
A: She said that this man pretended to be a patient.
The prosecution had as witnesses Reynaldo Baquilod, SPO1 Luis F. Galeno, PO3
Mateo Interia, Dr. Ravell Ronald Baluyot, Dr. Edgardo de Guzman, Dr. Paul Pepa, Q: And what else did she say?
Beverly Vidanes, Dr. John Enrique Franco, Fernando Tarlengco, Geraldine Tarlengco,
A: He asked her how much would it cost to pull a tooth and then she said, Dad,
Joseph Sumalbar, and Asst. Public Prosecutor Elizabeth Yu Guray. The defense
when I quoted my price, he said that he would come back and left in a hurry.
presented CHRISTOPHER, Leopoldo Leonor Leonidas, Dr. Alfredo Besa, Renato
Leonor and Alexander Pagubasan. Q: What else did she say, if any, Mr. Tarlengco?
The Office of the Solicitor General partly summarized the evidence for the A: After a minute, he came back, I told him to wait, to sit down first at my Waiting
prosecution as follows: Area because I [had] to still prepare the instruments needed.
Q: Then, what happened after that? asked him, Bakit mo ginawa iyon?Sabi niya, hindi ko po naman gusto. Kailangan ko
lamang ang pera.
A: She said, while I was busy preparing my instrument, Dad, this man barged in. He
demanded for my money. I told him it [was] on my table. And after telling that, Dad, Q: When you confronted the accused at Block 7, what else did he say, if any?
he stabbed me and then he grabbed my watch and he [ran] away and she said, I
struggled Dad, to come out of the clinic and when I was on the porch, I saw this A: While I was shouting at him, Hinold-up mo na, sinaksak mo pa. Bakit mo ginawa
man coming [sic] out of the building. I shouted for help, I said Saklolo, saklolo, iyon? Hindi ko po naman gusto iyon, mahuhuli na po ako, sabi niya. Mahuhuli na po
sinaksak ako ng taong iyan. Hulihin ninyo. ako kaya ginawa ko iyon.
Q: Then what else did she say after she narrated to you that incident, Mr. Q: Then what else did he say when you confronted him, if any?
Tarlengco?
A: And he told me that he needed the money.[6]
A: After that, in tears, she said that Dad, I dont know, why inspite of getting my
SPO3 Mateo Interia testified that on 16 May 1995, he took the statement of Dr.
money this man stabbed me and I was numbed at that point of time, I [could not]
Tarlengcos father and executed a Referral [7] to the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal for
talk anymore, I [could not] tell anything to her anymore, I just combed her hair with
CHRISTOPHERs inquest. Interia reported in the referral that CHRISTOPHER was
my fingers.
being held for robbery with homicide but forgot to state the property stolen from Dr.
Thereafter, Dr. Tarlengco was brought to a private room where she subsequently Tarlengco. After Mr. Tarlengco reminded Interia of the stolen items, the latter
died. intercalated into the referral a reference to P900 and a Titus wristwatch forming part
of the evidence against CHRISTOPHER.[8]
Dr. Ronaldo Baluyot, the NBI Medico-legal Officer who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the deceased, testified that Tarlengcos stab wound on the chest Fernando Tarlengco, father of the victim, described the impact of her daughters
could have been caused by single bladed fan knife. death, viz.:
Geraldine Tarlengco, who stayed with her sister Dr. Tarlengco while reviewing for Q: In connection with the death of your daughter, Mr. Tarlengco, did your family
the BAR Examination, owned a Titus watch similar to that of her sister. Both watches incur any expenses?
were given to them by another sister Cecille. On the morning of May 15, 1995,
A: Not just expenses but more on the agony, the tribulations we are having up to
Geraldine saw Dr. Tarlengco strap the watch on her wrist. Geraldine, likewise, saw
this time. You know, up to this time, we kept on weeping. My father, the grandfather
her sister, Dr. Tarlengco, place in her wallet one 500-peso bill and four 100-peso
of my daughter, was shocked and in anguish, he also succumbed to death in less
bills, after showing the same to Geraldine, who earlier was teasing her sister, Dr.
than two months, because of what this evil person [had] done to us. My work was
Tarlengco, that the reason why she did not buy the dress she wanted to buy at
affected. My wifes work is affected. There are times when we are at home, we dont
Cinderellas was because she had no money. If only to prove her sister Geraldine
know what to do anymore. We are in total misery. I dont know why this was done to
wrong, Dr. Tarlengco showed her money which she took from her wallet. [4]
us by the devil deeds of this person has done to us [sic].[9]
Additionally, Dr. John Enrique Franco, a friend of the victim, testified that he got to
In relation to Dr. Tarlengcos death, her family spent P8,718 for hospital expenses;
talk with Dr. Tarlengco at the hospital. He asked Dr. Tarlengco what happened, and
about P2,500 to P3,500 charged by Funeraria Malaya where she was
she answered that a man posing as a patient held her up and stabbed her. [5]
brought; P22,500 for her casket; P8,250 paid to Manila Memorial, Inc.; P5,000 for
Joseph B. Sumalbar, Dr. Tarlengcos fiance, testified that when he learned about his the masses held for Dr. Tarlengco; and about P10,000 for the food served to the
fiancees killing, he immediately went to the crime scene and, thereafter, to the Block guests at Dr. Tarlengcos wake.[10]
7 police station where he confronted the suspected killer, Christopher. Sumalbar
CHRISTOPHER, on the other hand, testified that on 15 May 1995, at about 6:00
recalled his conversation with the latter, thus:
a.m., he left his town Calauag, Quezon, and boarded a Jam Transit bus bound for
Q: And what happened after that, when you proceeded to the cell of this suspect? Manila, with P800 and a fan knife in his pocket. He was to fetch his family for the
town fiesta to be held on 25 May 1995. His head and two of his molar teeth were
A: I found this man who was half naked from the waist up. I found this man without then aching. He alighted at Alabang and took a bus bound for Bicutan Extension.[11]
any shirt on and he was sitting at the corner and he was trying to avoid me and I
Upon reaching Bicutan Extension, he looked for a dentist to have his aching teeth remembered that CHRISTOPHER complained of toothache before he left for Manila.
pulled. He found Dr. Tarlengcos dental clinic at the third floor of a certain building in [19]
General Santos Avenue. He asked Dr. Tarlengco how much an extraction cost, and
was told that the fee was P150 per tooth. CHRISTOPHER negotiated a charge Dr. Alfredo Besa, a dentist, examined CHRISTOPHER three hours before the former
of P100 per tooth, but Dr. Tarlengco rejected the offer. CHRISTOPHER then took the stand. Unassisted by any dental aid or nurse, he determined that two of
proceeded to look for another dentist, but before he could make his way out of the CHRISTOPHERs teeth were due for extraction [20] and, at the condition they were in,
clinic, Dr. Tarlengco stopped him and agreed to charge P100 per were probably aching as early as a year before. Citing his experience, Dr. Besa
extraction. CHRISTOPHER was made to sit on the dental chair as Dr.Tarlengco claimed that people complaining of tootache are usually irritable, although he
prepared the instruments for the extraction. Just as she was about to inject admitted that none of his patients complaining from a tootache has ever killed a
anesthesia, she remarked that she changed her mind and would charge P150 per person or even brought a fan knife to his clinic. In fact, he never heard of any
tooth pulled. CHRISTOPHER pushed away Dr. Tarlengcos hand, which angered patient with a toothache who killed a dentist. He recalled one instance when a
her. She castigated and cursed CHRISTOPHER for asking for an extraction without patient boxed him after he unintentionally hurt the patient while pulling a tooth.
being able to pay for it.[12]
These were the evidence before the trial court which merited CHRISTOPHERs
As CHRISTOPHER was making his way out of the clinic, Dr. Tarlengco cursed and conviction. CHRISTOPHER urges us to modify the judgment by (1) convicting him of
pushed him, at which moment he blacked out. [13] He then sensed that the dentist the crime of homicide, and not of robbery with homicide, and (2) appreciating in his
was in pain, and he saw blood spurting. He realized that he had stabbed the favor the mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as
dentist. In shock, CHRISTOPHER stepped back, lost the grip on his fan knife, and ran that committed, sufficient provocation, passion and obfuscation, voluntary surrender,
out of the clinic and out of the building.When he looked back at the clinic, he saw and voluntary confession.
Dr. Tarlengco shouting for help. A security guard, with his shotgun aimed at
CHRISTOPHER claims that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are fraught
CHRISTOPHER, ran after the latter.[14]
with inconsistencies and contradictions, and are therefore obvious concoctions and
CHRISTOPHER ran to where there were many people. Then he came across Police manufactured evidence. He points out that Baquilod failed to mention in his sworn
Officer Galeno, who grabbed him by the hand an asked what happened. He replied, statement, given to the police immediately after the incident, that he retrieved a
Sir, nakadisgrasya ako.[15] Galeno warded off the pursuing security guard who Titus wristwatch and P900 worth of peso bills from CHRISTOPHER. Baquilod likewise
insisted on apprehending CHRISTOPHER. Galeno brought CHRISTOPHER to Block 7, testified that Dr. Tarlengco shouted for help because she was stabbed; she made no
Paraaque Police Station, and later, to the Police Headquarters along the Coastal mention of having been robbed. Then, too, SPO1 Galeno stated in his sworn
Road in Paraaque. Four policemen, including PO3 Interia, took turns in mauling and statement that Dr. Tarlengco was only stabbed.
kicking him, and one policeman even took money from his wallet. Also, his clothes
CHRISTOPHER contends further that the testimonies of Baquilod, Galeno, Interia,
were confiscated.[16]
Sumalbar, and Yu Guray that he admitted to them on separate occasions his
During the investigation, CHRISTOPHER admitted that he had stabbed Dr. commission of the offense charged are inadmissible because the admission was not
Tarlengco, but denied that he had taken P900 and a Titus wristwatch from the in writing, was not made with the assistance of a counsel, and was not preceded by
victim. He was surprised when later, he was informed by Assistant Public Prosecutor a warning as to the consequences of the admission. In any event, their testimonies
Elizabeth Yu Guray that he would be charged with Robbery with homicide, not are hearsay evidence. Additionally, he stresses the possible bias of Yu Guray
homicide only.[17] considering that she caused the filing against him of the information for robbery with
homicide.
Leopoldo Leonor Leonidas, CHRISTOPHERs uncle, revealed that at about noon of 15
May 1995, while he was at home, he received a telephone call from CHRISTOPHER In the Appellees Brief, the Solicitor General refutes CHRISTOPHERs claims, asserting
saying that he had stabbed someone. When he asked CHRISTOPHER why he that the robbery was duly and satisfactorily established by the dying declaration of
stabbed someone the latter answered, Aburido ako, Kuya Ding, aburido ako (I am Dr. Tarlengco to her father, corroborated by the testimonies of Baquilod and
troubled, Kuya Ding, I am troubled).[18] Galeno. That Dr. Tarlengco failed to exclaim that she was robbed when she shouted
for help from her clinics balcony is of no moment, since she later told Dr. Franco and
Renato Leonor, CHRISTOPHERs father, testified that he went to see his son at his her father of the complete events that transpired. Galenos failure to mention in his
detention cell but could hardly recognize him because he was bloodied. He sworn statement that money and a wristwatch were retrieved from CHRISTOPHER
does not negate his claim to that effect, because he later stated that fact in his
testimony. The settled rule is that testimonies in open court are superior to affidavits It is undisputable then that CHRISTOPHER took Dr. Tarlengcos belongings. The
taken ex parte. That Interia inserted the stolen items in the Police Referral does not unexplained possession of stolen articles gives rise to a presumption of theft unless
diminish the truth of the allegation of robbery, since it appears that the intercalation it is proved that the owner of the articles was deprived of her possessions by
was intended to make the Referral accurate. violence or intimidation, in which case, the presumption becomes one of robbery.
[27]
The prosecution proved in this case that there was violence and intimidation in
The core issues raised involve the credibility of witnesses. One of the highly revered the taking of Dr. Tarlengcos property.
dicta in our jurisdiction is that this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the
trial court in passing on the credibility of opposing witnesses unless there appears in Most crucial for the prosecution is the testimony of Mr. Fernando Tarlengco, the
the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence that have been victims father, because he stated the most incriminating piece of evidence the dying
overlooked which, if considered, will affect the result of the case. The reason declaration of Dr. Tarlengco. While, generally, a witness can testify only to those
therefor is founded on practical and empirical considerations. The trial judge is in a facts which are derived from his own perception,[28] a recognized exception thereto is
better position to decide questions of credibility, since he has personally heard the the reportage in open court of the declaration of a dying person made under the
witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. [21] Nevertheless, consciousness of an impending death where that persons death is the subject of
in view of the gravity of the charge and the penalty imposed, we spared no effort to inquiry in the case.[29] To be admissible, a dying declaration must (1) refer to the
meticulously review the evidence to determine whether CHRISTOPHER had indeed cause and circumstances surrounding the declarants death; (2) be made under the
committed the offense charged and the prosecutions evidence proved it beyond consciousness of an impending death; (3) be made freely and voluntarily without
reasonable doubt. coercion or suggestion of improper influence; (4) be offered in a criminal case in
which the death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry; and (5) the declarant must
CHRISTOPHER admitted that he stabbed Dr. Tarlengco. The burden of evidence, have been competent to testify as a witness had he been called upon to testify.
therefore, shifted to him; he had to prove a justifying [22] or exempting[23]circumstance
to avoid criminal liability. He miserably failed to do so. Dr. Tarlengcos dying declaration complied with the above requisites. She talked
about the incident which led to her condition. The declaration was a first-hand
The remaining factual issue is whether CHRISTOPHER killed Dr. Tarlengco by reason account of the incident, bereft of opinion or conjecture. The account was made in a
or on the occasion of a robbery [24] with the use of violence against or intimidation of criminal case where her death was part of the subject of inquiry. And, most
a person.One could be convicted of robbery with homicide only if the robbery itself important, she was convinced that she was about to die; thus:
was proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. The taking
with intent to gain of personal property belonging to another, by means of violence Atty. Revilla:
against or intimidation of any person or by using force upon things, constitutes
robbery.[25] Q Could you tell this Court what was her condition when you saw her inside the
operating room?
Geraldine Tarlengco and Joseph Sumalbar identified the items recovered from
CHRISTOPHER as belonging to Dr. Tarlengco. These testimonies indicate that Witness Tarlengco:
CHRISTOPHER stole personal property belonging to Dr. Tarlengco, consistent with
A I asked her how she was and she said, Dad, I have a feeling I can no longer
the disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the
endure this.
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. [26] While
CHRISTOPHER denied that Dr. Tarlengcos watch and money were recovered from Atty. Revilla:
him, the independent and corroborative testimonies of police officer Galeno and
guard Baquilod prove otherwise. The trial court found the testimonies of these two Q So, what else happened in the operating room while you were talking to her, Mr.
witnesses more credible, and we see no reason to depart from its Tarlengco?
conclusion.CHRISTOPHER also pointed out that the intercalation of stolen items in
Interias referral report to the Prosecutor indicated the fabrication of robbery charges A I told her to fight for her life. I asked her to open her eyes, keep herself awake,
against him. But the intercalation was sufficiently explained as an honest mistake, and in my desire to help her awake, I asked her what happened.
especially considering that Interia had specified in the report, in an entry appearing
Atty. Revilla:
before the intercalation, that the charge against CHRISTOPHER was robbery with
homicide.
Q Then what else happened while you were in the operating room, after that, Mr. A No, sir. I just said why did you change the price? and I stood up. That was the
Tarlengco? time she cursed me.
Witness Tarlengco: Q When she cursed you, did Dra. Tarlengco hit you with an instrument?
A On that condition, she was really very very cold and gasping and complaining of A No, Sir. She just got mad.
pain and gasping for breath.[30]
Q Did she slap you on your face?
Dr. Tarlengco narrated to her father that a man who pretended to be her patient
demanded money from her. After she surrendered her money to him, the latter A No Sir. She just pushed me.
stabbed her and took her watch as she lay injured.
Q And she did not box you anywhere in any portion of your body?
The dying declaration thus established not only that a robbery was committed, there
A No, Sir.
being violence and intimidation against Dr. Tarlengco, but that homicide was
perpetrated on the occasion of said robbery. Q And she likewise did not kick you in any part of your body?
Lastly, we find no mitigating circumstance in this case. CHRISTOPHER claims that he A She just told me bad words.[33]
did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as the act committed; that there was
sufficient provocation by the offended party immediately preceding the offense; that CHRISTOPHER is thus claiming that a push and bad words justify retaliation with a
he acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have produced in him passion and knife. Such claim is undeserving of belief and does not entitle CHRISTOPHER to the
obfuscation; that he voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority; and that he benefit of the mitigating circumstance prior provocation by the offended party.
voluntarily confessed having committed homicide.
CHRISTOPHER could not have been provoked by passion or obfuscation as,
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong does not mitigate in homicide cases according to him, he momentarily blacked out and instantly found his fan knife
where the accused used a deadly weapon in inflicting mortal wounds on vital organs embedded in Dr. Tarlengcos chest. To be blinded by passion and obfuscation is to
of the victim,[31] as in this case. lose self-control,[34] not consciousness. Moreover, courts cannot appreciate passion
and obfuscation unless there is a clear showing that there were causes naturally
The provocation sufficient to mitigate an offense must be proportionate to the tending to produce such powerful excitement as to deprive the accused of reason
gravity of the retaliatory act.[32] The events which led to the stabbing were described and self-control.[35] As we discussed earlier, the events leading to the stabbing
by CHRISTOPHER as follows: precluded any natural tendency to produce a powerful excitement in CHRISTOPHER.
Q Mr. Leonor, you said, while she was about to inject anaesthesia, you said Dra. CHRISTOPHER did not voluntarily surrender either to a person in authority or to any
Tarlengco changed the price from P100.00 to P150.00. Then you parried her other person. While he was being pursued by Security Guard Baquilod, he
hand. Is that correct? intentionally went to where there were many people, presumably to confuse
Baquilod. Fortunately, Police Officer Galeno was able to grab him by the hand and
A Opo. Tinabig ko po. [Yes, sir. I pushed it aside.]
prevented him from further eluding justice. There is nothing in the record which can
Q What hand of Dra. Tarlengco did you parry? lead us to conclude that he surrendered to anyone.
A The one handling the rounded instrument. Right hand, Sir. Neither was there voluntary confession in the instant case. The mitigating
circumstance contemplated by law is a plea of guilty made spontaneously and
Q When you parried her right hand, you were already sitting at the dental unconditionally in open court before the presentation of evidence for the
chair? Right? prosecution.[36] CHRISTOPHER made no such plea.
A Opo. What remains to be resolved is the penalty to be imposed. The penalty for robbery
with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death.[37] There being no evidence of
Q After you parried the hand of Dra. Tarlengco, she cursed you, right? aggravating or mitigating circumstance against or in favor of CHRISTOPHER, the
lower of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, [38] without the benefit of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.[39]We likewise believe that the awards in favor of Dr.
Tarlengcos family of moral damages of P2 million and attorneys fees of P500,000 are
excessive. We reduce them to P50,000 and P25,000, respectively.
WHEREFORE, the decision of Branch 274 of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque in
Criminal Case No. 95-212 is hereby MODIFIED. As modified, accused-appellant
CHRISTOPHER CAA LEONOR is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
the crime of robbery with homicide, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim, Dr. Teresa
Tarlengco, P50,000 as indemnity for death; P44,318 as actual damages; P50,000 as
moral damages; and P25,000 as attorneys fees, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-12883 November 26, 1917 amount of one thousand pesos, and to pay the costs is affirmed, with the costs of
this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Arellano, C.J., Torres, and Araullo, JJ., concur.
CLEMENTE AMPAR, defendant-appellant. Johnson, J., concurs in the result.
Street, J., did not sign.
MALCOLM, J.:
A fiesta was in progress in the barrio of Magbaboy, municipality of San Carlos,

Province of Occidental Negros. Roast pig was being served. The accused Clemente
Ampar, a man of three score and ten, proceeded to the kitchen and asked Modesto
Patobo for some of the delicacy. Patobo's answer was; "There is no more. Come
here and I will make roast pig of you." The effect of this on the accused as explained
by him in his confession was, "Why was he doing like that, I am not a child." With
this as the provocation, a little later while the said Modesto Patobo was squatting
down, the accused came up behind him and struck him on the head with an ax,
causing death the following day.
As the case turns entirely on the credibility of witnesses, we should of course not
interfere with the findings of the trial court. In ascertaining the penalty, the court,
naturally, took into consideration the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. The court,
however, gave the accused the benefit of a mitigating circumstance which on
cursory examination would not appear to be justified. This mitigating circumstance
was that the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony.
The authorities give us little assistance in arriving at a conclusion as to whether this

circumstance was rightly applied. That there was immediate vindication of whatever
one may term the remarks of Patobo to the accused is admitted. Whether these
remarks can properly be classed as "a grave offense" is more uncertain. The
Supreme court of Spain has held the words "gato que arañaba a todo el mundo,"
"landrones," and "era tonto, como toda su familia" as not sufficient to justify a
finding of this mitigating circumstance. (Decisions of January 4, 1876; May 17, 1877;
May 13, 1886.) But the same court has held the words "tan landron eres tu como tu
padre" to be a grave offense. (Decision of October 22, 1894.) We consider that
these authorities hardly put the facts of the present case in the proper light. The
offense which the defendant was endeavoring to vindicate would to the average
person be considered as a mere trifle. But to this defendant, an old man, it evidently
was a serious matter to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many
guests. Hence, it is believed that the lower court very properly gave defendant the
benefit of a mitigating circumstance, and correctly sentenced him to the minimum
degree of the penalty provided for the crime of murder. lawph!1.net
Judgment of the trial court sentencing the defendant and appellant to seventeen
years four months and one day of cadena temporal, with the accessory penalties
provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Modesto Patobo, in the
G.R. No. 96444 June 23, 1992 Contrary to law (Original Records of Criminal Case No. 85-40580, p. 1)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Appellant Pajares pleaded not guilty to both charges (Original Records of Criminal
vs. Case No. 85-40579, p. 5; Original Records of Criminal Case No. 85-40580, p. 8).
LEANDRO PAJARES y FLORENTINO, accused-appellant. Upon the petition of herein appellant that the two (2) cases be consolidated, a joint
trial ensued.
The prosecution presented Renato R. Perez, Cpl. Benigno Dong, Salud Manguba,
PARAS, J.: Pat. Conrado Bustillos, Dr. Norman Torres, Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, Rosita Viojan
and Arlene Viojan as witnesses while only appellant Leandro Pajares took the witness
This is an appeal from the decision * of the Regional Trial Court, NCJR, Branch VIII,
stand for the defense.
Manila dated October 25, 1990 in Criminal Case No. 85-40579 entitled "People of the
Philippines v. Leandro Pajares y Florentino" convicting herein appellant Pajares of the Renato R. Perez, a resident of 1386-K Burgos St., Paco, Manila, is the same Renato
crime of Murder. Perez who is the victim in Criminal Case No. 85-40580 for Frustrated Homicide. He
testified that at about 11:30 p.m. on October 11, 1985, he and the deceased
Herein appellant was charged with the aforementioned crime in an Information
Diosdado Viojan were on their way to a store located at Gomez St., Paco, Manila to
which reads as follows:
buy something. They were walking abreast with each other, the deceased was at his
That on or about the 11th day of October, 1985, at night time, purposely sought to right side and was a bit ahead of him, when appellant Pajares suddenly appeared
insure and better accomplish his criminal design, in the City of Manila. Philippines, from behind and hit Viojan with a baseball bat at the back of his head. The latter ran
the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with five (5) others whose a short distance and fell down near the store of one Alex Blas. When Perez tried to
true names, real Identities, and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping help Viojan. he, too, was attacked by Pajares with the baseball bat hitting him at the
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to back below the left shoulder. He then grappled with the appellant for the possession
kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, attack, assault. and use personal violence of the baseball bat but the latter's companions, namely: Rudy Dokling, Popoy, Inggo
upon one DIOSDADO VIOJAN Y SABAYAN, by then and there mauling him and and Lauro Duado mauled him until he lost consciousness. He was brought to the
hitting him with a baseball bat at the back of the head, a vital part of the body, Philippine General Hospital by Eugene Panibit and Joselito Perez where he was
thereby inflicting upon the said DIOSDADO VIOJAN Y SABAYAN a club wound on the treated for the injuries he sustained (TSN, Hearing of January 7, 1986, pp. 4-23). He
head which was the direct and immediate cause of his death. identified in court the baseball bat used by Pajares (TSN, Hearing of September 16,
1986, p. 36).
Contrary to law. (Original Records of Criminal Case No, 85-40579, p. 1)
On cross examination, he averred that he has known appellant Pajares for less than
He was likewise charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide in an Information a year and that although they both live in Zone 89, he and the deceased belonged to
which reads as follows: a group which is an adversary of the group of the accused (Ibid., pp. 39-41).
That on or about the 11th day of October, 1985, at night time, purposely sought to Cpl. Benigno Dong, of the Zamora Police Department Station No. 6, WPD, testified
insure and better accomplish his criminal design, in the City of Manila, Philippines, that he was on duty on October 12, 1985 when one Napoleon Gabawa sought their
the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with five (5) others whose assistance regarding a killing incident that happened in Gomez Street, Paco, Manila.
true names, real identities, and present whereabouts are still unknown, and helping They went to the house of appellant Leandro Pajares at 1453 Gomez St., Paco,
one another, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Manila and invited the latter and his brother to the station for questioning regarding
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one RENATO PEREZ Y the aforementioned incident. Pajares verbally admitted his participation in the
RUIDERA, by mauling and hitting him with a baseball bat at the back, a vital part of incident (TSN, Hearing of March 11, 1986, p. 26). The incident was registered in the
the body, thereby inflicting upon him a club wound at the back which is necessarily Police Blotter Entry (Exhibits "A" to "A-3", Original Records of Criminal Case No. 85-
mortal and fatal, thus performing all the acts of execution which would have 40579. pp. 30-33)
produced the crime of homicide, as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, because of the On cross examination, he admitted that he placed appellant Pajares under arrest
timely and able medical attendance rendered upon the said RENATO PEREZ after he verbally admitted that he was responsible for the death of Diosdado Viojan,
RUIDERA which prevented his death.
but the booking sheet and arrest report has not been accomplished yet (TSN, Arlene Viojan, widow of Diosdado Viojan. testified that prior to the incident her
Hearing of March 11, 1986, p 27). husband was working with PEMCO earning about P500.00 a week. At the time of the
incident, she was three (3) months on the family way. She gave birth to a baby girl
Salud Manguba, Forensic Chemist of the National, Bureau of Investigation, testified and it was her parents-in-law who paid for the expenses during her delivery. At the
that she examined a baseball bat for the presence of blood upon the written request moment, she is living with her parents (TSN, Hearing of April 4, 1988, p. 67).
of Pat. Conrado Bustillos (Exhibit "C-1", Original Records of Criminal Case No. 85-
40579, p. 69). In connection with the study she made, she submitted Biology Report Appellant Leandro Pajares y Florentino denied the allegations of the prosecution. He
No. B-85-1342 (Exhibit "C". Original Records of Criminal Case No. 85-40579, p. 68) asserts that he knew the deceased Diosdado Viojan by the name Dado, having met
that shows the absence of blood on the baseball bat (TSN, Hearing of June 23, him once at the store, and Renato Perez by the name Balat. At the time of the
1986, pp. 30-32). incident, he was inside the store of Alex Blas with about eight (8) other People
watching television. Hence, he did not see who hit Diosdado Viojan and Renato
Pat. Conrado G. Bustillos, testified that relative to a telephone call he received from Perez. After the commotion, upon the advise of Alex Blas, he went home and slept.
the Philippine General Hospital on October 12 1985 he went to the morgue of the At about 3:30 in the morning of October 12, 1985, he was arrested inside their
said hospital to investigate a dead on arrival case of one Diosdado Viojan. A close house. Without asking any question, he went with the arresting officers to the police
examination of the body of the latter showed that he suffered a fracture at the back station (TSN, Hearing of August 1, 1988, pp. 72-76).
of the skull. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of the crime to make an ocular
inspection where he was informed that there was another victim by the name At the police detachment, he was coerced to admit his participation in the crime
Renato Perez. Pat. Bustillos further testified that Renato Perez was investigated at since a gun was poked at him. He identified his signature at the Booking Sheet and
the Homicide Section and that the latter executed a sworn statement (Exhibit "F" Arrest Report (Exhibit "J", Original Records of Criminal Case No 85-40579, p. 222)
Original Records of Criminal Case No, 85-40579, p 208) in relation to the incident. In but alleged that he signed the same without being allowed to read the contents
the same manner, Roberto Pajares. brother of herein appellant was also investigated thereof without the assistance of counsel and while being held at the collar at the
and who also executed a sworn statement (Exhibit "G", Ibid., p. 219) The alleged back of his shirt. He likewise averred that during investigation the investigating
murder weapon, a baseball bat, was turned over to him by Cpl. Ben Macalindog policemen molested him like "pinipitik-pitik" his ears with rubber band or chopping
(TSN, November 18, 1986, p. 46). his neck with karate chops ( Ibid., pp. .77-78). He, however, admitted that even after
several days he did not complain about what were done to him (Ibid., p. 128).
Dr. Norman Torres, a resident physician at the Philippine General Hospital, testified
that on October 12, 1985, a certain Diosdado Viojan was brought to the emergency On cross examination, he testified that his house is about five (5) houses away from
room of the Philippine General Hospital for head injury, left occipital region. The the store of Alex Blas, the scene of the crime (TSN, Hearing of August 22, 1983, pp.
victim was in critical condition necessitating immediate surgery. He did not 90-91). He likewise denied any knowledge about any quarrel between his brother,
personally attend the operation but learned that the victim died while undergoing the Roberto Pajares and the deceased Diosdado Viojan (TSN, Hearing of September 19,
surgery. Witness further averred that the injury could have been caused by a blunt 1988, p. 108).
instrument like a baseball bat (TSN, Hearing of December 2, 1986, p. 46).
As aforementioned, the trial court rendered a decision on October 25, 1990, the
Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, dispositive portion of which reads:
testified that he conducted an autopsy on the body of Diosdado Viojan and in
connection therewith submitted Autopsy Report No. N-85-2161 (Exhibit "L", Original WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered
Records on Criminal Case No. 85-40579, p. 224) indicating that the cause of death finding herein accused LEANDRO PAJARES y FLORENTINO of 1433-B, Gomez St.,
was "Hemorrhage, meningeal, severe, traumatic". He further testified that a single Paco, Manila, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against him, as
forceful blow against the head using a blunt instrument like a baseball bat could follows:
have caused the injury (TSN, Hearing of June 15, 1987, pp. 58-60).
CRIM. CASE NO. 85-40579:
Rosita S. Viojan, mother of the deceased Diosdado Viojan, testified that when her
The Court finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as
son died, she hired the services of Tree Amigos Funeral Parlor for P12,000.00 as
defined and penalized by Art. 248, par, 1, Rev. Penal Code, and there being no
evidenced by Official Receipt No. 10511 (Exhibits "P" and "Q", Original Records of
modifying circumstance to consider, hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment
Criminal Case No. 85-40579, pp. 228-229) (TSN, Hearing of February 23. 1988, p.
of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessory penalties of the law; to pay Arlene
66).
Viojan and her child the sum of: P30,000,00; P12,000.00 as funeral expenses; not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present,
P15,000.00 as moral damages; and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses and attorney's watching and listening, may escape the reader of the written translated words
fees; and finally the costs of the suit. (People v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991 [201 SCRA 616]).
CRIM. CASE NO. 85-40580: Appellant's sole defense is alibi. According to him, he was inside the store of Alex
Blas, watching television, when the incident occurred, Alex Blas even advised him to
The Court finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Slight go home so as not to be involved in the incident. However, the latter was not
Physical Injuries as defined in par. 1, Art. 266 and penalized by Art. 27, both of the presented to corroborate appellant's testimony. Alibi is the weakest defense an
Rev. Penal Code, hereby sentencing him to an imprisonment of ONE (1) MONTH; accused can concoct. In order to prosper, it must be so convincing as to preclude
and to pay the cost of suit. any doubt that the accused could have been physically present at the place of the
crime or its vicinity at the time of the commission (People v. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No.
Done in Manila, this 25th day of October, 1990.
94320, September 4. 1991 (201 SCRA 317]). In the case at bar, appellant was within
SO ORDERED. (RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 38) the vicinity of the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
Hence this appeal. Furthermore, appellant was Positively identified by Renato Perez as the perpetrator
of the crime. In the face of the clear and positive testimony of the prosecution
Appellant Pajares asserts that the trial court gravely erred in imposing the penalty witness regarding the participation of the accused in the crime, the accused's alibi
of reclusion perpetua upon him. He avers that such a penalty is tantamount to a dwindles into nothingness. The Positive identification of the accused by the witness
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment which is prohibited by the Constitution. as the perpetrator of the crime cannot be overcome by the mere denial of the
Appellant points out that hours before the clubbing incident, Roberto Pajares, accused. Such positive identification of the accused that he killed the victim
appellant's younger brother, was mauled by the group of Diosdado Viojan as cited by establishes the guilt of the accused beyond moral certainty (People v Arroyo, supra).
the lower court referring to the entry in the Police Blotter and the sworn statement
of Roberto Pajares. The mauling of the latter is a big insult and truly offending to the The trial court correctly ruled that the crime was attended by treachery. There is
appellant and his family. Hence, the clubbing of Diosdado Viojan by herein appellant treachery, the law says, when the offender adopts means, methods or forms in the
was a vindication of the grave offense committed against his family. a mitigating execution of the felony which ensure its commission without risk to himself arising
circumstance under paragraph 5 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering from the defense which the offended party might make (People v. Cuyo, G.R. No.
further that the appellant was just nineteen (19) years old at the time he committed 76211, April 30, 1991 [196 SCRA 447]). As found by the trial court, appellant Pajares
the offense the penalty imposed by the court a quo should have been seventeen hit Diosdado Viojan with a baseball bat from behind without any warning thereby
(17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day (Brief for the Appellant, Rollo, pp. 52- precluding any possible retaliation from the victim.
58).
Having established the guilt of herein appellant. the next question is whether or not
The appeal is devoid of merit. the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense can be
appreciated in his favor. While it may be true that appellant's brother Roberto
In convicting herein appellant of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, the trial Pajares was mauled by the companions of the deceased at about 11:30 a.m. of
court relied heavily on the testimony of prosecution witness Renato Perez which it October 11, 1985 as show in the entry in the Police Blotter (Exhibits "A" to "A-3",
found to be credible. According to the lower court, the latter "gave his account on Original Records of Criminal Case No. 85-40579. pp. 30-33) and by appellant's
what was done to them by the accused and his companions in a simple, candid, brother himself (Exhibits "G", "Q" and "A" Nos. 7-9, Ibid., p. 219), it must be
straightforward manner" (RTC Decision. Rollo, p. 36). emphasized that there is a lapse of about ten (10) hours between said incident and
the killing of Diosdado Viojan. Such interval of time was more than sufficient to
It is doctrinally entrenched that the evaluation of the testimony of witnesses by the enable appellant to recover his serenity (People v. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042,
trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because it is the trial court December 17, 1976 [74 SCRA 271]). Hence, the mitigating circumstance of
that has the opportunity to observe them on the stand and detect if they are telling immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be appreciated in his favor.
the truth or lying in their teeth (People v. Santito, Jr., G.R. No. 91628, August 22,
1991 [201 SCRA 87]). The appellate court can only read in cold print the testimony IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with
of the witnesses which commonly is translated from the local dialect into English. In modification that the indemnity is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with the
the process of converting into written form the statement of living human beings, policy of this Court on the matter.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Nocon, J., is on leave.
G.R. No. 4971 September 23, 1909 In view of the foregoing the provincial fiscal on the 8th of February, 1908, filed a
complaint with the Court of First Instance of said province charging Augustus Hicks
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff, with the crime of murder. Proceedings were instituted, the trial court, after hearing
vs. the evidence adduced, entered judgment on the 10th of September of the same
AUGUSTUS HICKS, defendant. year, sentencing the accused to the penalty of death, to be executed according to
the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the
Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey for plaintiff.
costs. The case has been submitted to this court for review.
Jose Robles Lahesa for defendant.
The above-stated facts, which have been fully proven in the present case, constitute
TORRES, J.:
the crime of murder, defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code, in that
For about five years, from September, 1902, to November, 1907, Augustus Hicks, an the woman Agustina Sola met a violent death, with the qualifying circumstance of
Afro-American, and Agustina Sola, a Christian Moro woman, illicitly lived together in treachery (alevosia), she being suddenly and roughly attacked and unexpectedly
the municipality of Parang, Cotabato, Moro Province, until trouble arising between fired upon with a 45-caliber revolver, at close, if not point blank range, while the
them in the last-mentioned month of 1907, Agustina quitted Hick's house, and, injured woman was unarmed and unprepared, and at a time when she was listening
separation from him, went to live with her brother-in-law, Luis Corrales. A few days to a conversation, in which she was concerned, between her aggressor and third
later she contracted new relations with another negro named Wallace Current, a person, and after usual and customary words had passed between her and her
corporal in the Army who then went to live in the said house. aggressor. From all of the foregoing it is logically inferred that means, manners, and
forms were employed in attack that directly and specially insured the consummation
On the 21st of December following, at about 7:30 p. m., Augustus Hicks together of the crime without such risk to the author thereof as might have been offered by
with a soldier named Lloyd Nickens called at said house, and from the sala called out the victim who, owing to the suddenness of the attack, was doubtless unable to flee
to his old mistress who was in her room with Corporal Current, and after conversing from the place where she was standing, or even escape or divert the weapon.
with her in the Moro dialect for a few minutes, asked the corporal to come out of
said room; in response thereto the corporal appeared at the door of the room, and The accused, Augustus Hicks, pleaded not guilty, but notwithstanding his
after a short conversation, Current approached Hicks and they shook hands, when exculpatory allegations which were certainly not borne out at the trial, the evidence
Hicks asked him the following question: "Did I not tell you to leave this woman in the case is absolutely at variance therewith and conclusively establishes, beyond
alone?," to which Current replied: "That is all right, she told me that she did not peradventure of doubt, his culpability as the sole fully convicted author of the violent
want to live with you any longer, but if she wishes, she may quit me, and you can and treacherous death of his former mistress, Agustina Sola.
live with her." The accused then replied: "God damn, I have made up my mind;" and
It is alleged by the accused that when he withdrew his hand from that of Current,
as Corporal Current saw that Hicks, when, he said this, was drawing a revolver from
who had seized him, he fell backward but managed to support himself on his two
his trousers' pocket, he caught him by the hand, but the latter, snatching his hand
hands, and when he got up again the said corporal threatened him with a revolver
roughly away, said: "Don't do that," whereupon Current jumped into the room,
thrust into his face; whereupon he also drew his revolver, just as Edward Robinson
hiding himself behind the partition, just as Hicks drew his revolver and fired at
caught him from behind, when his revolver went off, the bullet striking the
Agustina Sola who was close by in the sala of the house. The bullet struck her in the
deceased.
left side of the breast; she fell to the ground, and died in a little more than an hour
later. This allegation appears to be at variance with the testimony of the witnesses Wallace
Current, Edward Robinson, Luis Corrales, and Lloyd Nickens in their respective
Upon hearing the shot Edward Robinson, who was also in the house, went to render
declaration, especially with that of the second and third, who witnessed the actual
assistance and wrested the weapon from the hand of the accused. The latter
firing of the shot by the aggressor at the deceased, as shown by the fact that
immediately fled from the house and gave himself up to the chief of police of the
Robinson immediately approached the accused in order to take his weapon away
town, H. L. Martin, asking him to lock him up in jail; and, when a few minutes later a
from him which he succeeded in doing after a brief struggle, whereupon the
policeman came running in and reported that Hicks had fired a shot at Agustina, the
aggressor ran out of the house. Thus, the shot that struck the deceased in the
said chief of police caused Hicks to be arrested. The latter, when once in jail, threw
breast and caused her death was not due to an accident but to a willful and
eight revolver cartridges out of the window; these were picked up by a policeman
premeditated act on the part of the aggressor with intent to deprive the victim of her
who reported the occurrence and delivered the cartridges to his chief.
life.
In addition to the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as above referred to, the

presence of other aggravating circumstances, such as premeditation, and the fact
that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the deceased should be taken into
consideration. The last-mentioned circumstances appears proven from the testimony
of several witnesses who were examined at the trial of the case.
Inasmuch as in the present case the crime has already been qualified as committed
with treachery, the circumstance of premeditation should only be considered as a
merely generic one. Premeditation is, however, manifest and evident by reason of
the open acts executed by the accused. According to the testimony of Charles
Gatchery and Eugenio R. Whited, Hicks asked leave from the former to be absent
from the canteen where he was working on the morning of the day when the affray
occurred, alleging that his mind was unsettled and that he feared getting into
trouble. It is also shown by the fact that Whited, who was in Hicks' house about
noon upon the latter's invitation, and while both where drinking gin, and while the
revolver, the instrument of the crime, was lying on the table on which were also
several loaded cartridges, heard the accused repeatedly say, referring to the
deceased, that her time had come, adding that he would rather see her dead than in
the arms of another man, and when the accused went to bed apparently very much
worried, and refusing to answer when called, the witness left him. On the day after
the crime the police found on a table in the cuprit's house several loaded cartridges,
a bottle of oil and a piece of cloth used undoubtedly for cleaning the revolver.
All the foregoing circumstances conclusively prove that the accused, deliberately and
after due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another
man, and in order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety, notwithstanding
the fact that he was already provided with a clean and well-prepared weapon and
carried other loaded cartridges besides those already in his revolver, he entered the
house, greeting everyone courteously and conversed with his victim, in what
appeared to be a proper manner, disguising his intention and claiming her by his
apparent repose and tranquility, doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his
criminal design, behaving himself properly as he had planed to do beforehand.
As against the two foregoing aggravating circumstances no mitigating circumstances

is present, not even that mentioned in paragraph 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, to
wit loss of reason and self-control produced by jealousy as alleged by the defense,
inasmuch as the only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of
self-control are such as originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from
vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.
From the foregoing considerations, and as the judgment appealed from is in

accordance with the law, it is our opinion that the same should be affirmed, as we
do hereby affirm it with costs, provided, however, that the death penalty shall be
executed according to the law in force, and that in the event of a pardon being
granted, the culprit shall suffer the accessory penalties of article 53 of the Penal
Code unless the same be expressly remitted in the pardon. So ordered.
G.R. No. L-7094 March 29, 1912 cause of the crime by producing in the accused strong emotion which impelled him
to the criminal act and even to attempt his own life, were a sufficient impulse in the
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, natural and ordinary course to produce the violent passion and obfuscation which
vs. the law regards as a special reason for extenuation, and as the judgment did not
HILARIO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant. take into consideration the 8th circumstance of article 9 of the code,
the Audiencia rendering it seems to have violated this legal provision."
F.C. Fisher for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Harvey for appellee. It is true that in the case of U.S. vs. Hicks (14 Phil. Rep.., 217), we held that the
"causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such
CARSON, J.:
as originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy,
The guilt of the defendant and appellant of the crime of homicide of which he was and immoral passions," and declined to give the benefit of the provisions of this
convicted in the court below is conclusively established by the evidenced of record. article to the convict in that case on the ground that the alleged causes for his loss
of self-control did not "originate from legitimate feelings." But in that case we found
The trial court was of opinion that its commission was not marked by either as facts that:
aggravating or extenuating circumstances, and sentenced the convict to fourteen
years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, the medium degree of the All the foregoing circumstances conclusively prove that the accused, deliberately and
penalty prescribed by the code. Burt we are of opinion that the extenuating after due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another
circumstance set out in subsection 7 of article 9 should have been taken into man, and in order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety, notwithstanding
consideration, and that the prescribed penalty should have been imposed in its the fact that he was already provided with a clean and well-prepared weapon and
minimum degree. Subsection 7 of article 9 is as follows: carried other loaded cartridges besides those already in his revolver, he entered the
house, greeting everyone courteously and conversed with his victim, in what
The following are extenuating circumstances: appeared to be in a proper manner, disguising his intention and calming her by his
apparent repose and tranquility, doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his
xxx xxx xxx criminal design, behaving himself properly as he had planned to do beforehand.
That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced In the former case the cause alleged "passion and obfuscation" of the aggressor was
passion and obfuscation. the convict's vexation, disappointment and deliberate anger engendered by the
refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a
The evidence clearly discloses that the convict, in the heat of passion, killed the
perfect right to do; his reason for killing her being merely that he had elected to
deceased, who had theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover) upon
leave him and with his full knowledge to go and live with another man. In the
discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. We
present case however, the impulse upon which defendant acted and which naturally
think that under the circumstances the convict was entitled to have this fact taken
"produced passion and obfuscation" was not that the woman declined to have illicit
into consideration in extenuation of his offense under the provisions of the above-
relations with him, but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and his
cited article.
discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. As said by the supreme court of
This was the view taken by the Court of Spain upon a similar state of facts as set Spain in the above-cited decision, this was a "sufficient impulse" in the ordinary and
forth in its sentence of July 4, 1892, which is summarized by Viada (p. 69, in natural course of things to produce the passion and obfuscation which the law
question 19, art. 9 of vol. 6) as follows: declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration
by the court.
Shall he who kills a woman with whom he is living in concubinage for having caught
her in her underclothes with another party and afterwards shoots himself, inflicting a Modified by a finding that the commission of the crime was marked with the
serious wound, be responsible for that crime with the extenuating circumstance of extenuating circumstance set out in subsection 7 of article 9, and by the reduction of
having acted with violent passion and obfuscation? The Audiencia of Santiago de the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal to
Cuba did not so hold and its judgment was reversed by the supreme court for the twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, the judgment of conviction and the
improper disregard of article 9, number 8, of the Penal Code for Cuba and Puerto sentence imposed by the trial court should be and are hereby affirmed, with the
Rico: "The facts held to be true by the trial court, and which were the immediate costs of this instance against the appellant.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Trent, JJ., concur. Contrary to and in Violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659.
[G.R. No. 126096. July 26, 1999]
(p. 7, Rollo.)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADO SANDRIAS
JAVIER, accused-appellant. The two other complaints were identically worded as the above complaint except
that they respectively charged that the rape therein alleged occurred in November
DECISION and December 1994.
MELO, J.: Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the cases were
jointly tried.
Once again, we are given the heavy task of reviewing a judgment of conviction
imposing the death penalty in a crime so dastardly and repulsive incestuous As principal witness for the prosecution, Julia recounted her harrowing experience at
rape. Considering that a persons life is at stake, we are burdened to come up with the hands of her father. Her testimony was capsulized by the trial court in this wise:
an error-free judgment amidst our frailties and imperfections, lest our conscience be
bothered for rendering an irrevocable and irreversible error. At about 1:00 oclock in the afternoon of October 20, 1994, while her mother was out
doing some laundry for neighbors, thus she and the accused were left alone in their
In the case under review, three separate complaints were filed against accused- house at Zone 5, Baikingon, Cagayan de Oro City, and while she was at the porch of
appellant charging him with rape committed on October 20, 1994 and sometime on their house, accused called for her to the conjugal room and while thereat grabbed
November, 1994 and December, 1994, against his daughter, Julia Ratunil Javier. The her right hand. She shouted for help but nobody came to her rescue from neighbors,
first complaint charged: the nearest of whom was about 60 meters away. Accused continued his sexual
assault on her by boxing her abdomen resulting to her unconsciousness. When she
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 95-136
regained consciousness, she felt pain in her vagina which was bleeding and wet with
The undersigned complainant, who is a minor of 16 years of age, single, herein some sticky fluids. She cried but was warned by the accused that should she make
assisted by her grandmother, Mrs. Librada Ratunil, after being duly sworn to law, an outcry and report the incident to her mother, he will kill her. Out of fear, and
hereby accuses her father AMADO SANDRIAS JAVIER, who is detained under Illegal knowing that accused has a handgun, she held her outcry.
Possession of Firearm charge, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
Parenthetically, the accused was also charged of Illegal Possession of Firearm in
That in or about October 20, 1994, at more or less 1 oclock in the afternoon, at Zone Criminal Case No. 95-141 committed on March 20, 1995 also raffled to this branch,
5, Baikingon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly on May 8, 1996.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, as father of herein complainant, by
Complainant further declared that applying practically the same force and
means of force, violence, and intimidation, while inside our dwelling house at the
intimidation and about the same time (1:00 P.M.) and again while complainants
afore-mentioned place, and when said accused and herein aggrieved party were
mother was out doing some laundry for neighbors, accused repeated the sexual
alone in their said dwelling house as the undersigned aggrieved-party-complainants
assault on her on November 18, 1994 and December 19, 1994.
mother was out doing laundry work as a laundry woman, held and pulled
undersigned complainant to accuseds bedroom in said dwelling house and as the Complainant testifying further declared that she has three older brothers and a
undersigned refused, wrestled and shouted for help, accused boxed and hit sister. That she is the youngest and the only one who lived with her parents. Her
undersigneds stomach to unconsciousness and did then and there, against three older brothers lived in Manila, Cotabato and the last one with her
complainants will and consent, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal grandmother, Vda. De Librada Ratunil.
knowledge of the undersigned who noticed upon regaining consciousness that she
was already stripped of her pairs of panty and pants and feeling extreme pain of her Out of fear, she kept the incident to herself until she felt some unusual pain in her
private parts, and then and there accused threatened the undersigned of death if body and when she can no longer manage said situation, she finally broke her
undersigned complainant would reveal the incident to undersigneds mother or to silence by going to her grandmother, Librada Vda. De Ratunil at 165 Capistrano
anybody else, thus, resulting to undersigneds pregnancy as examined and found out Street, Cagayan de Oro City in the evening of March 15, 1995. She was asked by her
by the doctor, all against the will and consent of the undersigned, to her great grandmother about the author of her pregnancy, she answered that it was her
damage and prejudice. father, the herein accused.
Complainant on cross examination, admitted having a sweetheart and were engaged would like to put up for adoption because he is a reminder of what her father did to
for one year already prior to the incident. Her sweetheart, whom she identified as her (tsn, Oct. 11, 1995, pp. 14-15).
Michael Apduhan pays her a visit at times but on Saturday afternoon only with her
mother around. Consequently, there was no occasion that she met her sweetheart Likewise, Julia was examined by DSWD Psychologist Ma. Lavern Labitad Jabien who
alone for either her mother is around in the house or went out with her sweetheart found her to be suffering from inferiority complex and exhibiting feelings of
with her barkada during disco dances on the eve of fiestas. inadequacy and insecurity. Julia was also said to lack security in human relations
because of her experience and the brutal treatment she received from her father,
(pp. 24-26, Rollo.) and mentally deficient as a result of poor parenting or parental deprivation (tsn,
October 18, 1995, pp. 7-9).
Julias grandmother, Librada Vda. De Ratunil, corroborated Julias story and narrated
that on March 15, 1995, Julia arrived at her house and upon knowing the things that Accused-appellant vehemently disputed the charges against him, alleging that the
happened to her granddaughter, she wrote Julias mother, Emma, her daughter, and same were engineered by his mother-in-law, Librada Vda. De Ratunil, who despises
informed her of the matter. They decided to report the matter to the police him for being a drunkard. He further declared that Julia is an errant daughter, who
authorities at the Bulua Police Station in Cagayan de Oro City where they executed after reaching the age of 14, started attending dances and acquired several
the complaints (tsn, October 11, 1995, pp. 19-20). sweethearts but only one of them paid visits at their house. Thus, he beat her,
especially when he discovered her to be pregnant (tsn, December 6, 1995, pp. 14-
Dr. Tammy Uy of the National Bureau of Investigation, Region 10, examined the 18, 26).
victim and made the following findings:
Accused-appellant claimed that from October to November, 1994, he was working as
GENITAL EXAMINATION a mason in the house of Bernabe Granada which is about 200 meters from his
house. Among his co-workers were a certain Bermon, Dayata, and Dudong Granada,
Pubic hairs, fully grown, abundant. Labiae mejora and minor, both
the son of Bernabe Granada. His working hours were from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. Likewise,
gaping. Fourchete, moderately lax. Vestibular mucusae, violaceous and with
from December 1994 to February 1995, he said he was working at Carlito Caudors
engorded veins. Hymen, tall, thick, fleshy, with old healed complete laceration at
house, also spending the same working hours therein. At the same time, he was also
9:00 oclock position, and an old healed deep incomplete lacerations at 6:00 non-
a member of the Barangay Tanod of Baikingon (tsn, supra, pp. 9-13).
coaptable. Hymenal orifice, originally annular, admits a glass tube of 2.5
cms. Diameter with slight resistance. Vaginal walls, lax; rugosities To bolster accused-appellants contention that he was working at the time the rape
obliterated. Uterus, enlarged with palpable fundus and with a fundic height of 12 incidents happened, the defense presented his employers, Bernabe Granada and
cms. (between the umbilicus and sumphysis pubs). Cervix, soft, non-tender, Carlito Caudor.Granada testified that in October 1994, he engaged accused-appellant
enlarged, bluish-purpole. Light yellow muccoid cervical discharge is noted. for masonry work in the lay-outing of his house. Accused-appellant worked from 8 to
11:30 oclock in the morning and from 1 to 4 oclock in the afternoon and oftentimes
CONCLUSION
took his lunch at the workplace. His house is located in Zone 6 while that of accused-
1. Genital findings present, compatible with sexual intercourse with man on or about appellant is in Zone 5. Accused-appellant stopped working for Granada on January
20 October 1994 as alleged and subsequently thereafter. 20, 1995 (tsn, March 13, 1996, pp. 4-5). On the other hand, Caudor testified that he
had known accused-appellant for 15 years and that for the months of October and
2. Probable signs of pregnancy present, consistent with the early part of the second November, accused-appellant worked in Caudors house from 8 to 11:30 oclock in the
trimester of pregnancy, morning and from 1 to 4:30 oclock in the afternoon. Among his co-workers were
Matias Remerane, Julieto Dayata, and Danilo Caudor (tsn, January 31, 1996, pp. 3-
REMARKS: 6).
Pregnancy Test gave + sign. After trial, on June 8, 1996, the Regional Trial Court of the 10th Judicial Region,
Branch 21, in Cagayan de Oro City, presided over by the Honorable Arcadio D. Fabria
(pp. 23-24, Rollo.)
rendered judgment finding accused-appellant Amado Sandrias Javier guilty of Rape
Meanwhile, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) took under Criminal Case No. 95-136 and of Qualified Seduction in Criminal Cases No. 95-
custody of Julia who gave birth to a baby boy on August 22, 1995 but whom she 147 and 95-148, and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of examination. Even in these trying times of poverty and greed, it is difficult to believe
the crime of RAPE in Criminal Case No. 95-136 defined and penalized by Art. 335 of that the grandparents of a child would allow her to be subjected to the ordeal and
the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and hereby sentences him to embarrassment of a public trial and to expose her private parts to examination just
death and in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-147 and 95-148 finds him guilty of Qualified because they do not approve of accused-appellant as their daughters husband
Seduction under Article 337 of Paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences (People vs. Perez, 270 SCRA 526 [1997]). On the contrary, accused-appellant
him to an indeterminate penalty in each case of (5) years, (5) months and (11) days admitted that his relationship with complainants grandmother is not strained, as in
of Prision Correccional as minimum to (6) years, (8) Months and 20 days of Prision fact, his mother-in-law used to extend assistance to his family (tsn, December 6,
Mayor as maximum and to indemnify the offended party the sum of P50,000 as 1995, pp. 23-24).
moral and exemplary damages, to support the child until he shall have reached the
age of majority and to pay the costs. Accused-appellant also claims that complainant was merely impelled by revenge in
filing the case as he used to scold and beat her for her disobedience, especially after
The accused is further ordered to recognize and acknowledge the said child as his coming to know of her pregnancy. It is highly inconceivable that complainant would
son. impute a crime so serious as rape against her own father, if this were not the plain
truth. The Court has oft repeated that it takes a certain amount of psychological
SO ORDERED. depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to
jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself
(p. 35, Rollo.)
to a lifetime of shame ( People vs. Sangil, Sr., 276 SCRA 532 [1997]; People vs.
Accused-appellant assails said judgment and anchors his appeal on the general and Fuensalida, 281 SCRA 452 [1997]).
catch-all argument that the trial court erred in convicting him despite the failure of
Complainant cannot be faulted for her delay in reporting the three instances of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
rape. Delay in reporting rape does not undermine the charge where it is grounded
Accused-appellant questions the credibility of complainant mainly because she has a on the accuseds death threats (People vs. Talabac, 256 SCRA 441 [1996]; People vs.
sweetheart and used to attend discos and benefit dances which lasted until Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82 [1996]).
midnight. He vainly tries to portray a picture of complainant as an unchaste and
Complainant satisfactorily explained her hesitation in reporting the incidents, thus:
impure woman who was impregnated by her sweetheart at the tender age of
16. However, this Court believes that vilifying aspersion need not necessarily cast Prosecutor Tagarda
doubt on complainants credibility nor would it negate conclusively the existence of
rape. It should be pointed out that the moral character of the victim is immaterial in x x x x
the prosecution and conviction of the accused. The Court has ruled that even a
prostitute can be the victim of rape ( People vs. Edualino, 271 SCRA 189 [1997]) for Q: And you said you cried, what happened?
she can still refuse a mans lustful advances ( People vs. Iglanes, 272 SCRA 113
A: I kept on crying and he came to me and admonished me that he will kill me if I
[1997]). In the case at bench, complainant is certainly not a prostitute. She even
will report the matter to my mother.
clarified on cross-examination that she was always in the company of friends
whenever she attended discos and fiesta celebrations and that she never went out Q: And when he warned you that he will kill you if you report the matter to your
alone with her sweetheart. She likewise stressed that whenever her sweetheart mother, what did you feel?
visited her at their house on Saturdays, her mother and father were always present
(tsn, October 4, 1995, pp. 5-11). Indeed, accused-appellants self-serving and A: I was not able to reveal to my mother because I know that he has pistola in his
unsubstantiated slur that his daughter is a woman of loose morals betrays his possession.
desperation to exculpate himself from liability. Against complainants positive
testimony, accused-appellants self-exculpatory aspersion that complainant may have x x x x
had sexual intercourse with other males simply cannot prevail.
(tsn, September 27, 1995, p. 10)
Likewise, accused-appellants contention that the filing of the case was instigated by
More importantly, the aggressor was none other than her father with whom she
complainants grandmother fails to sway the Court from lending full credence to the
lived. Thus, not much explanation is needed to understand the prolonged silence of
testimony of complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-
the victim.
Accused-appellants defense of alibi was properly rejected by the trial court. He Q: After your stomach or abdomen was boxed by your father the accused in this
insisted that at the time the rape incidents happened, he was in his working case, what happened to you?
place. However, considering that the place where he supposedly was is merely 200
meters from his own house (tsn, December 6, 1995; p. 10; January 31, 1996, p. 8), A: I lost consciousness.
a distance which could be covered by a 5-minute leisurely walk, this defense cannot
Q: Now when you regain(ed) consciousness what happened?
prevail over complainants positive identification of accused-appellant ( People vs.
Escober, 281 SCRA 498 [1997]; People vs. Parrazo, 272 SCRA 512 [1997]). A: I noticed that I have no more short pants and panty.
Courts have always looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and have Q: What else did you notice?
invariably received it with caution not only because it is inherently weak and
unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated. For alibi to serve as basis for A: I felt pain at my vagina.
acquittal, it must be established with clear and convincing evidence. The requisites
of time and place must be strictly met ( People vs. Caada, 253 SCRA 277 Q: What else?
[1996]). Where the accused fails to convincingly demonstrate that it was physically
A: And my vagina was bleeding.
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission, as in this case, the defense of alibi must be rejected. Q: What else did you observe?
The trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of the crime of rape in Criminal A: I cried.
Case No. 95-136. However, we cannot agree with its judgment insofar as Criminal
Cases No. 95-147 and 95-148 are concerned. Q: Aside from the bleeding oozing from your vagina, what else did you observe?
The trial court concluded: A: I noticed that there was something when I touched there is sticky fluids.
While the court is convinced that there was sufficient force and intimidation Q: And you said you cried, what happened?
employed by the accused in committing sexual intercourse on complainant in the
October 20, 1994 incident, it entertains some doubts about the degree of force and A: I kept on crying and he came to me and admonished me that he will kill me if I
intimidation as would warrant a finding of rape for the sexual intercourses will report the matter to my mother.
committed on November 18 and December 19, 1994. Q: And when he warned you that he will kill you if you report the matter to your
(p. 34, Rollo.) mother, what did you feel?
The trial court proceeded to convict accused-appellant merely of qualified seduction A: I was not able to reveal to my mother because I know that he has pistol in his
under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code in the aforementioned cases. possession.
A careful perusal of the record would disclose that accused-appellant employed Q: Did you report when your mother came, did you report the incident?
practically the same force and intimidation in committing the crime on October 20, A: I did not.
1994, November 18, 1994 and December 19, 1994. The commission of rape with
force and intimidation under Article 335 (par. 2) of the Revised Penal Code is clearly Q: Now that happened on October 20, 1994 after same date, what happened next?
established by the testimony of complainant herself, thus:
A: There was something that happened to me after October 20, 1994 to December.
Prosecutor Tagada
Q: December of 19?
Q: After you shouted, what happened?
A: 1994.
A: My father boxed my stomach or abdomen kuto-kuto.
Q: What did your father do to you after that incident of October 20, 1994 to
December 19, 1994?
A: He again raped me. Q: What else did you discover?
Q: And what time your father raped you again? A: I felt pain in my vagina.
A: At 1:00 oclock in the afternoon more or less. Q: And what else happened?
Q: Why, do you know the reason? A: Blood was oozing with my vagina.
A: Because that was the schedule when my mother wash(es) clothes. Q: What happened after that?
Q: How about in the month of November 1994? A: When I touched my vagina, there was a sticky fluid.
A: He again raped me. Q: What did you feel, tell us if any?
Q: What date in November? A: He frightened me that if I will tell everything to (an)other person I will be killed.
A: November 18. Q: And when your father frightened you, what did you feel?
Q: The time is? A: I was afraid because I was not able to reveal to my mother, I know that he has a
pistola.
A: 1:00 oclock in the afternoon.
Q: Now, in the month of December what happened in December 1994?
Q: And the place is ?
A: About the end of December.
A: At Baikingon.
Q: What about in December 1994?
Q: Where at Baikingon?
A: He again raped me.
A: At Zone 5 in our house.
Q: Where did he rape you?
Q: Will you please narrate to the Honorable Court how did your father rape you on
November 18, 1994? A: In the same place in his bedroom.
A: He again called me at their conjugal bedroom of my mother. Q: Will you please narrate before the Honorable Court what happened before, what
time was that?
Q: What happened when he called you?
A: At 1:00 oclock In the afternoon.
A: I refused to do so but there is nothing I could do because nobody heard my
shout. Q: And who were in the house when that incident happened at the end of December
1994, who were the persons in the house?
Q: After you shouted?
A: We were only two.
A: He again boxed my abdomen.
Q: Where was your mother then?
Q: What happened when you were boxed by your father?
A: She was washing clothes.
A: I was unconscious.
Q: Will you narrate before the Honorable court the incident leading to the rape that
Q: When you regained consciousness, what did you observe? occurred to you the last portion of December 1994?
A: I dont have panty anymore and no short pants.
A: Almost at the end of December 1994, I was, at around 1:00 oclock in the great or be of such character as could not be resisted it is only necessary that the
afternoon, again I was raped by my father. force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had
in mind (People vs. Caada (253 SCRA 277 [1996]; People vs. Antonio, 233 SCRA 283
Q: What happened at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon at the end of the last portion of [1994]). Accused-appellant, being the father, undoubtedly exerted a strong moral
December 1994? influence over complainant. In rape committed by a father against his own daughter,
the formers moral ascendancy and influence over the latter may substitute for actual
A: At around 1:00 oclock in the afternoon at the end of December 1994, I was again
physical violence and intimidation (People vs. Casil, 241 SCRA 285 [1995]; People
called by my father to enter his bedroom.
vs. Burce, 269 SCRA 2293 [1997]).
Q: And did you enter his bedroom when you were called by your father?
Well-settled is the rule that physical resistance need not be established in rape when
A: I did not. intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her
will to the rapists embrace because of fear for life and personal safety ( People vs.
Q: What happened? Dones, 254 SCRA 696 [1996]; People vs. Ramos, 245 SCRA 405 [1996]). Obviously,
the use of threat of death by accused-appellant against complainant constituted
A: He pulled my right hand. sufficient intimidation to cow her into obedience. Finally, this Court has also ruled
that if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of a continuing intimidation,
Q: And then after that?
then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault as to make the
A: I shouted but nobody answered. victims participation in the sexual act voluntary ( People vs. Pamor, 237 SCRA 462
[1994]).
Q: After that?
Moreover, assuming that the prosecution failed to prove the use of force by accused-
A: My panty and my short pant were no longer in my body. appellant, the latter cannot be convicted of qualified seduction. It is only when the
complaint for rape contains allegations for qualified seduction that the accused may
Q: What did you observe? be convicted of the latter in case the prosecution fails to prove the use of force by
A: I felt the pain in my vagina. the accused (People vs. Antido, 278 SCRA 425 [1997]). To do otherwise would be
violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informed
Q: What else did you observe? of the accusation against him. The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted
of qualified seduction under the same information ( People vs. Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144
A: My whole body feel the pain. [1976]). Then, too, rape and qualified seduction are not identical offenses.While the
two felonies have one common element which is carnal knowledge of a woman, they
Q: After that, what else happened. Where was your father when you felt that your significantly vary in all other respects ( Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 667
whole body was aching? [1994]).
A: My father was already outside the bedroom. What the trial court should have done was to dismiss the charges for rape in
Q: What did he tell you if any? Criminal Cases No. 95-147 and 95-148, if indeed, in its opinion, the prosecution
failed to sufficiently establish the existence of force and intimidation, and order
A: He will kill me if I will report to anybody. instead the filing of the appropriate information. Be that as it may, this Court
believes otherwise and is fully convinced that accused-appellant is guilty as well of
(tsn, September 27, 1995, pp. 9-12) these two other counts of rape.
The above testimony plainly shows how accused-appellant took advantage of his The trial court ordered accused-appellant to recognize the child born to complainant
moral ascendancy over complainant despite her struggle and resistance. despite the fact that said accused-appellant is a married man. The rule is that if the
rapist is a married man, he cannot be compelled to recognize the offspring of the
The force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be
crime as his child, as the character of its origin legally prevents him from doing
overpowering or irresistible when applied ( People vs. vs. Errojo , 229 SCRA 49
so (People vs. Guerrero , 242 SCRA 606 [1995], citing People vs. De Guzman, 217
[1994]). For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation be so
SCRA 395 [1993] and People vs. Rizo, 189 SCRA 265 [1990]). Thus, the order of the quantum of proof for the proper imposition and carrying out of the death
court a quo pertaining thereto must be deleted. penalty. Verily, the minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and
clearness as the crime itself. Otherwise, failure to sufficiently establish the victims
Critical and more substantial, however, are certain misgivings we entertain with age is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form.
respect to the propriety of imposition of death penalty as there is one facet of the
case which necessitates elucidation. Accused-appellant is being charged under In view of the foregoing consideration, we are constrained to hold accused-appellant
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 which amended Art. 335 of the Revised Penal liable only of simple rape, and to reduce the penalty to the lower indivisible penalty
Code and which reads: of reclusion perpetua.
SEC. 11. Article 335 of the same Code (Revised Penal Code, as amended) is hereby Inasmuch as the rape in this case is not qualified by any of the circumstances under
amended to read as follows: which the death penalty is to be imposed, the civil indemnity to be awarded to the
offended party should remain to be P50,000.00 for each count. In line with the case
ART. 335. When and how rape is committed.- Rape is committed by having carnal of People of the Philippines vs. Senen Prades (293 SCRA 411 [1998]), accused-
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: appellant should indemnify the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages
without need for proof of the basis thereof. Lastly, accused-appellant is liable to pay
x x x
complainant the sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages to deter other fathers
x x x with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their
own daughters (People vs. Lao, 249 SCRA 137 [1995]; People vs. Sangil, Sr., 276
x x x SCRA 532 [1997]).
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED, to wit:
of the following attendant circumstances:
1. Accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, crime of simple rape, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the perpetua for each count.
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
2. Accused-appellant shall indemnify the victim for each count of rape the
In the case at hand, the complaints stated that the rape victim is 16 years old which following: (1) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
therefore qualified her under the aforequoted provision. However, it is significant to (3) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
note that the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the
complainant. Although the victims age was not contested by the defense, proof of 3. The portion of the judgment of the trial court ordering accused-appellant to
age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victims recognize and acknowledge the child as his son, is deleted.
age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of
SO ORDERED.
18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old
girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are Romero, Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old
lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent Davide, Jr., C.J., on leave.
proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove
an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the
qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal
prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but
proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with
which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said
penalty to be upheld. We have meticulously examined the records of the case and
we are convinced that the evidence for the prosecution falls short of the required
[G.R. No. 140937. February 28, 2001] Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte. Accordingly, the two went to Florentinos house. On
their way, they met petitioner who told them that if Narciso was the owner, he
EXUPERANCIO CANTA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE should claim the cow himself. Nevertheless, petitioner accompanied the two to his
PHILIPPINES, respondent. fathers house, where Maria recognized the cow. As petitioners father was not in the
house, petitioner told Gardenio and Maria he would call them the next day so that
DECISION
they could talk the matter over with his father.
MENDOZA, J.:
However, petitioner never called them. Hence, Narciso Gabriel reported the matter
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated August 31, 1999, and to the police of Malitbog, Southern Leyte. [6] As a result, Narciso and petitioner
resolution, dated November 22, 1999, of the Court of Appeals, [1] which affirmed the Exuperancio were called to an investigation. Petitioner admitted taking the cow but
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Maasin, Southern Leyte, [2] finding claimed that it was his and that it was lost on December 3, 1985. He presented two
petitioner Exuperancio Canta guilty of violation of P.D. No. 533, otherwise known as certificates of ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and another dated February 27,
the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974, and sentencing him to ten (10) years and one 1985, to support his claim (Exh. B).[7]
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months, and
Narciso presented a certificate of ownership issued on March 9, 1986, signed by the
eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay the costs.
municipal treasurer, in which the cow was described as two years old and
The information against petitioner alleged: female. On the reverse side of the certificate is the drawing of a cow with cowlicks in
the middle of the forehead, between the ears, on the right and left back, and at the
That on or about March 14, 1986, in the municipality of Malitbog, province of base of the forelegs and hindlegs (Exhs. C, C-1 to 4). [8] All four caretakers of the cow
Southern Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the identified the cow as the same one they had taken care of, based on the location of
above-named accused with intent to gain, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully its cowlicks, its sex, and its color. Gardenio described the cow as black in color, with
and feloniously, take, steal and carry away one (1) black female cow belonging to a small portion of its abdomen containing a brownish cowlick, a cowlick in the middle
Narciso Gabriel valued at Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) without the knowledge of the forehead, another at the back portion between the two ears, and four
and consent of the aforesaid owner, to his damage and prejudice in the amount cowlicks located near the base of its forelegs and the hindlegs.[9]
aforestated.
On the other hand, petitioner claimed he acquired the animal under an agreement
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3] which he had with Pat. Diosdado Villanueva, that petitioner take care of a female
cow of Pat. Villanueva in consideration for which petitioner would get a calf if the
The prosecution established the following facts: cow produced two offsprings. Petitioner claimed that the cow in question was his
share and that it was born on December 5, 1984. This cow, however, was lost on
Narciso Gabriel acquired from his half-sister Erlinda Monter a cow, subject of the
December 2, 1985. Petitioner said he reported the loss to the police of Macrohon,
case, upon its birth on March 10, 1984. The cow remained under the care of Erlinda
Padre Burgos, and Malitbog, on December 3, 1985 (Exh. A and Exh. 1). [10]
Monter for sometime. Subsequently, Narciso gave the care and custody of the
animal, first, to Generoso Cabonce, from October 24, 1984 to March 17, 1985; then Petitioner said that on March 14, 1986, his uncle Meno told him that he had seen the
to Maria Tura, from May 17, 1985 to March 2, 1986; and lastly, to Gardenio Agapay, cow at Pilipogan, under the care of Gardenio Agapay. He, therefore, went to
from March 3, 1986 until March 14, 1986 when it was lost. [4] It appears that at 5 Pilipogan with the mother cow on March 14, 1986 to see whether the cow would
oclock in the afternoon of March 13, 1986, Agapay tookthe cow to graze in the suckle the mother cow. As the cow did, petitioner took it with him and brought it,
mountain of Pilipogan in Barangay Candatag, about 40 meters from his together with the mother cow, to his father Florentino Canta. [11] Maria Tura tried to
hut. However, when he came back for it at past 9 oclock in the morning of March 14, get the cow, but Florentino refused to give it to her and instead told her to
1986, Agapay found the cow gone. He found hoof prints which led to the house call Narciso so that they could determine the ownership of the cow. [12]As Narciso did
of Filomeno Vallejos. He was told that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had taken the not come the following day, although Maria did, Florentino said he told his son to
animal.[5] take the cow to the Municipal Hall of Padre Burgos. Petitioner did as he was
told. Three days later, Florentino and Exuperancio were called to the police station
Upon instructions of the owner, Gardenio and Maria Tura went to recover the animal
for investigation.[13]
from petitioners wife, but they were informed that petitioner had delivered the cow
to his father, Florentino Canta, who was at that time barangay captain of Laca,
Petitioner presented a Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle dated February 27, If accused Exuperancio Canta were the owner of the cow in question, why would he
1985[14] and a statement executed by Franklin Telen, janitor at the treasurers office lie on its registration? And why would he have to ask Mr. Franklin Telen to antedate
of the municipality of Padre Burgos, to the effect that he issued a Certificate of its registry? It is clear that accused secured a Certificate of Ownership of Large
Ownership of Large Cattle in the name of petitioner Exuperancio Canta on February Cattle (Exh. 2-A) by feigning and manipulation (Exhs. A & B) only after the act
27, 1985 (Exh. 5).[15] The statement was executed at the preliminary investigation of complained of in the instant case was committed on March 14, 1986. His claim of
the complaint filed by petitioner against Narciso.[16] ownership upon which he justifies his taking away of the cow has no leg to stand
on. Upon the other hand, the complainant has shown all the regular and necessary
Petitioners Certificate of Ownership was, however, denied by the municipal proofs of ownership of the cow in question.[19]
treasurer, who stated that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had no Certificate of
Ownership of Large Cattle in the municipality of Padre Burgos (Exhs. E, E-1 and 2). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision and denied petitioners motion
[17]
On the other hand, Telen testified that he issued the Certificate of Ownership of for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. It is contended that the prosecution failed
Large Cattle to petitioner on March 24, 1986 but, at the instance of petitioner, he to prove beyond reasonable doubt his criminal intent in taking the disputed cow.
(Telen) antedated it to February 27, 1985.[18]
First. Petitioner claims good faith and honest belief in taking the cow. He cites the
On January 24, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of following circumstances to prove his claim:
the offense charged. In giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution, the trial
court stated: 1. He brought the mother cow to Pilipogan to see if the cow in question would suckle
to the mother cow, thus proving his ownership of it;
From the affidavits and testimonies of the complainant and his witnesses, it is
indubitable that it was accused Exuperancio Canta who actually took the cow away 2. He compared the cowlicks of the subject cow to that indicated in the Certificate of
without the knowledge and consent of either the owner/raiser/caretaker Gardenio Ownership of Large Cattle issued on February 27, 1985 in his name, and found that
Agapay. they tally;
That the taking of the cow by the accused was done with strategy and stealth 3. He immediately turned over the cow to the barangay captain, after taking it, and
considering that it was made at the time when Gardenio Agapay was at his shelter- later to the police authorities, after a dispute arose as to its ownership; and
hut forty (40) meters away tethered to a coconut tree but separated by a hill.
4. He filed a criminal complaint against Narciso Gabriel for violation of P. D. No. 533.
The accused in his defense tried to justify his taking away of the cow by claiming
These contentions are without merit.
ownership. He, however, failed to prove such ownership. Accused alleged that on
February 27, 1985 he was issued a Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle (Exh. 2- P.D. No. 533, 2(c) defines cattle-rustling as
A) for his cow by Franklin Telen, a janitor at the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of
Padre Burgos, a neighboring town. On rebuttal Franklin Telen denied in Court the . . . the taking away by any means, methods or scheme, without the consent of the
testimony of the accused and even categorically declared that it was only on March owner/raiser, of any of the abovementioned animals whether or not for profit or
24, 1986 that the accused brought the cow to the Municipal Hall of Padre Burgos, gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any
when he issued a Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle for the cow, and not on person or force upon things.
February 27, 1985. Franklin Telen testified thus:
The crime is committed if the following elements concur: (1) a large cattle is
Q. According to the defense, this Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle was issued taken; (2) it belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the
by you on February 27, 1985. Is that correct? owner; (4) the taking is done by any means, methods or scheme; (5) the taking is
with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without
A. Based on the request of Exuperancio, I antedated this. violence or intimidation against person or force upon things.[20]
(TSN, June 3, 1992, p. 7) These requisites are present in this case. First, there is no question that the cow
belongs to Narciso Gabriel. Petitioners only defense is that in taking the animal he
The testimony of Franklin Telen was confirmed in open court by no less than the
acted in good faith and in the honest belief that it was the cow which he had
Municipal Treasurer of Padre Burgos, Mr. Feliciano Salva. (TSN, September 29, 1992,
lost. Second, petitioner, without the consent of the owner, took the cow from the
pp. 5-8).
custody of the caretaker, Gardenio Agapay, despite the fact that he knew all along the fact that he knew it was in the custody of its caretaker cannot save him from the
that the latter was holding the animal for the owner, Narciso. Third, petitioner consequences of his act.[23] As the Solicitor General states in his Comment:
falsified his Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle by asking Telen to antedate it
prior to the taking to make it appear that he owned the cow in question. Fourth, If petitioner had been responsible and careful he would have first verified the
petitioner adopted means, methods, or schemes to deprive Narciso of his possession identity and/or ownership of the cow from either Narciso Gabriel or Gardenio
of his cow, thus manifesting his intent to gain. Fifth, no violence or intimidation Agapay, who is petitioners cousin (TSN, 9/12/91, p. 26). Petitioner, however, did not
against persons or force upon things attended the commission of the crime. do so despite the opportunity and instead rushed to take the cow. Thus, even if
petitioner had committed a mistake of fact he is not exempted from criminal liability
Indeed, the evidence shows that the Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle which due to his negligence.[24]
petitioner presented to prove his ownership was falsified. Franklin Telen, the janitor
in the municipal treasurers office, admitted that he issued the certificate to petitioner In any event, petitioner was not justified in taking the cow without the knowledge
10 days after Narcisos cow had been stolen. Although Telen has previously executed and permission of its owner. If he thought it was the cow he had allegedly lost, he
a sworn statement claiming that he issued the certificate on February 27, 1985, he should have resorted to the court for the settlement of his claim. Art. 433 of the Civil
later admitted that he antedated it at the instance of petitioner Exuperancio Canta, Code provides that The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of
his friend, who assured him that the cow was his.[21] the property. What petitioner did in this case was to take the law in his own hands.
[25]
He surreptitiously took the cow from the custody of the caretaker, Gardenio
Telens testimony was corroborated by the certification of the municipal treasurer of Agapay, which act belies his claim of good faith.
Padre Burgos that no registration in the name of petitioner was recorded in the
municipal records.Thus, petitioners claim that the cowlicks found on the cow tally For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the evidence fully supports the finding of
with that indicated on the Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle has no value, as both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that accused-appellant is guilty as
this same certificate was issued after the cow had been taken by petitioner from charged. There is therefore no reason to disturb their findings.
Gardenio Agapay. Obviously, he had every opportunity to make sure that the
However, the decision of the Court of Appeals should be modified in two respects.
drawings on the certificate would tally with that existing on the cow in question.
First, accused-appellant should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance
The fact that petitioner took the cow to the barangay captain and later to the police
analogous to voluntary surrender. The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the
authorities does not prove his good faith. He had already committed the crime, and
following elements: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender
the barangay captain to whom he delivered the cow after taking it from its owner is
surrenders to a person in authority or to the latters agent; and (3) the surrender is
his own father. While the records show that he filed on April 30, 1986 a criminal
voluntary.[26] In the present case, petitioner Exuperancio Canta had not actually been
complaint against Narciso Gabriel, the complaint was dismissed after it was shown
arrested. In fact, no complaint had yet been filed against him when he surrendered
that it was filed as a countercharge to a complaint earlier filed on April 16, 1986
the cow to the authorities. It has been repeatedly held that for surrender to be
against him by Narciso Gabriel.
voluntary, there must be an intent to submit oneself unconditionally to the
Petitioner says that he brought a mother cow to see if the cow in question would authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense
suckle to the mother cow. But cows frequently attempt to suckle to alien cows. that his search and capture would require. [27] In petitioners case, he voluntarily took
[22]
Hence, the fact that the cow suckled to the mother cow brought by petitioner is the cow to the municipal hall of Padre Burgos to place it unconditionally in the
not conclusive proof that it was the offspring of the mother cow. custody of the authorities and thus saved them the trouble of having to recover the
cow from him. This circumstance can be considered analogous to voluntary
Second. Petitioner contends that even assuming that his Certificate of Ownership is surrender and should be considered in favor of petitioner.
not in order, it does not necessarily follow that he did not believe in good faith that
the cow was his.If it turned out later that he was mistaken, he argues that he Second, the trial court correctly found petitioner guilty of violation of 2(c) of P. D.
committed only a mistake of fact but he is not criminally liable. No. 533, otherwise known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. However, it erred
in imposing the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12
Petitioners Certificate of Ownership is not only not in order. It is fraudulent, having years, 5 months and 11 days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The trial
been antedated to make it appear it had been issued to him before he allegedly took court apparently considered P. D. No. 533 as a special law and applied 1 of the
the cow in question. That he obtained such fraudulent certificate and made use of it Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that if the offense is punished by any
negates his claim of good faith and honest mistake. That he took the cow despite other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
However, as held in People v. Macatanda,[28] P. D. No. 533 is not a special law. The
penalty for its violation is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties
prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, thus indicating that the intent of the lawmaker
was to amend the Revised Penal Code with respect to the offense of theft of large
cattle. In fact, 10 of the law provides:
The provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, pertinent provisions of the Revised Administrative
Code, as amended, all laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations
which are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
There being one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance in the

commission of the crime, the penalty to be imposed in this case should be fixed in its
minimum period.Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, in relation to Art. 64 of
the Revised Penal Code, petitioner should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty,
the minimum of which is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.
e., prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium, and the maximum of
which is prision mayor in its maximum period.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the

modification that petitioner Exuperancio Canta is hereby SENTENCED to suffer a
prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional maximum,
as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as
maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Mitigating Circumstances

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mitigating Circumstances

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mitigating Circumstances

Costs against accused-appellant.

Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

A fiesta was in progress in the barrio of Magbaboy, municipality of San Carlos,

The authorities give us little assistance in arriving at a conclusion as to whether this

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Nocon, J., is on leave.

In addition to the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as above referred to, the

As against the two foregoing aggravating circumstances no mitigating circumstances

From the foregoing considerations, and as the judgment appealed from is in

A: He again raped me. Q: What else did you discover?

There being one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance in the

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

You might also like