Criminal Law September 17 Page |1

Republic of the Philippines WHEREFORE . . . the Court finds the accused Norberto
SUPREME COURT Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias
Manila Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo
FIRST DIVISION Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder, and with
G.R. Nos. 86883-85 January 29, 1993 the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, treachery, hereby sentences each of them to a penalty of
vs. imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; to pay the Pontifical
NORBERTO MANERO, JR., EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO, Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME) Brothers, the
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO, ROGER BEDAÑO, congregation to which Father Tulio Favali belonged, a civil
RODRIGO ESPIA, ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR., JOHN DOE and PETER indemnity of P12,000.00; attorney's fees in the sum of
DOE, accused. P50,000.00 for each of the eight (8) accused or a total sum
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO and ROGER of P400,000.00; court appearance fee of P10,000.00 for
BENDAÑO, accused-appellants. every day the case was set for trial; moral damages in the
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. sum of P100,000.00; and to pay proportionately the costs.
Romeo P. Jorge for accused-appellants. Further, the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr.
alias Commander Bucay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
BELLOSILLO, J.: the offense of Arson and with the application of the
This was gruesome murder in a main thoroughfare an hour before sundown. Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to an
A hapless foreign religious minister was riddled with bullets, his head indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of not less than four
shattered into bits and pieces amidst the revelling of his executioners as they (4) years, nine (9) months, one (1) day of prision
danced and laughed around their quarry, chanting the tune "Mutya Ka correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision
Baleleng", a popular regional folk song, kicking and scoffing at his prostrate, correccional, as maximum, and to indemnify the Pontifical
miserable, spiritless figure that was gasping its last. Seemingly unsatiated Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME) Brothers, the
with the ignominy of their manslaughter, their leader picked up pieces of the congregation to which Father Tulio Favali belonged, the sum
splattered brain and mockingly displayed them before horrified spectators. of P19,000.00 representing the value of the motorcycle and
Some accounts swear that acts of cannibalism ensued, although they were to pay the costs.
not sufficiently demonstrated. However, for their outrageous feat, the Finally, the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr.,
gangleader already earned the monicker "cannibal priest-killer" But, what is alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio
indubitable is that Fr. Tulio Favali1 was senselessly killed for no apparent Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias
reason than that he was one of the Italian Catholic missionaries laboring in Rudy, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño GUILTY beyond
heir vineyard in the hinterlands of Mindanao.2 reasonable doubt of the offense of Attempted Murder and
In the aftermath of the murder, police authorities launched a massive with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
manhunt which resulted in the capture of the perpetrators except Arsenio hereby sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty
Villamor, Jr., and two unidentified persons who eluded arrest and still remain of imprisonment of not less than two (2) years, four (4)
at large. months and one (1) day of prision correccional, and
Informations for Murder,3 Attempted Murder4 and Arson5 were accordingly minimum, to eight (8) years and twenty (20) days of prision
filed against those responsible for the frenzied orgy of violence that fateful mayor, as maximum, and to pay the complainant Rufino
day of 11 April 1985. As these cases arose from the same occasion, they Robles the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and
were all consolidated in Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, P2,000.00 as court appearance fee for every day of trial and
Cotabato.6 to pay proportionately the costs.
After trial, the court a quo held —
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |2

The foregoing penalties shall be served by the said accused away, he was again fired upon by Edilberto. Only his trousers were hit.
successively in the order of their respective severity in "Bantil" however managed to seek refuge in the house of a certain Domingo
accordance with the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Gomez. 10 Norberto, Jr., ordered his men to surround the house and not to
Penal Code, as amended.7 allow any one to get out so that "Bantil" would die of hemorrhage. Then
From this judgment of conviction only accused Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Edilberto went back to the restaurant of Deocades and pistol-whipped him
Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño appealed with respect to the cases for on the face and accused him of being a communist coddler, while appellants
Murder and Attempted Murder. The Manero brothers as well as Rodrigo and their cohorts relished the unfolding drama. 11
Espia did not appeal; neither did Norberto Manero, Jr., in the Arson case. Moments later, while Deocades was feeding his swine, Edilberto strewed him
Consequently, the decision as against them already became final. with a burst of gunfire from his M-14 Armalite. Deocades cowered in fear as
Culled from the records, the facts are: On 11 April 1985, around 10:00 he knelt with both hands clenched at the back of his head. This again drew
o'clock in the morning, the Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and boisterous laughter and ridicule from the dreaded desperados.
Elpidio, along with Rodrigo Espia, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleñago At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his motorcycle.
and Roger Bedaño, were inside the eatery of one Reynaldo Diocades at Km. He entered the house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-
125, La Esperanza, Tulunan, Cotabato. They were conferring with Arsenio accused Pleñago towed the motorcycle outside to the center of the highway.
Villamor, Jr., private secretary to the Municipal Mayor of Tulunan, Cotabato, Norberto, Jr., opened the gasoline tank, spilled some fuel, lit a fire and
and his two (2) unidentified bodyguards. Plans to liquidate a number of burned the motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze, the felons raved and
suspected communist sympathizers were discussed. Arsenio Villamor, Jr. rejoiced. 12
scribbled on a cigarette wrapper the following "NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto, Jr. But the
Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate, Rene alias Tabagac and latter simply stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. At this
Villaning." "Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian priest suspected of point, Edilberto asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you
having links with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino Robles, a want, Father)? Gusto mo, Father, bukon ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me,
Catholic lay leader who is the complaining witness in the Attempted Murder; Father, to break your head)?" Thereafter, in a flash, Edilberto fired at the
Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the others are simply head of the priest. As Fr. Favali dropped to the ground, his hands clasped
"messengers". On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to Edilberto against his chest, Norberto, Jr., taunted Edilberto if that was the only way he
Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter Geremias, another knew to kill a priest. Slighted over the remark, Edilberto jumped over the
Italian priest would be killed in his stead.8 prostrate body three (3) times, kicked it twice, and fired anew. The burst of
At about 1:00 o'clock that afternoon, Elpidio Manero with two (2) gunfire virtually shattered the head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to scatter
unidentified companions nailed a placard on a street-post beside the eatery on the road. As Norberto, Jr., flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers,
of Deocades. The placard bore the same inscriptions as those found on the his brothers danced and sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the delight of their
cigarette wrapper except for the additional phrase "versus Bucay, Edil and comrades-in-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from
Palo." Some two (2) hours later, Elpidio also posted a wooden placard possible assistance. 13
bearing the same message on a street cross-sign close to the eatery.9 In seeking exculpation from criminal liability, appellants Severino Lines, Rudy
Later, at 4:00 o'clock, the Manero brothers, together with Espia and the four Lines, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño contend that the trial court erred in
(4) appellants, all with assorted firearms, proceeded to the house of "Bantil", disregarding their respective defenses of alibi which, if properly appreciated,
their first intended victim, which was also in the vicinity of would tend to establish that there was no prior agreement to kill; that the
Deocades' carinderia. They were met by "Bantil" who confronted them why intended victim was Fr. Peter Geremias, not Fr. Tulio Favali; that there was
his name was included in the placards. Edilberto brushed aside the query; only one (1) gunman, Edilberto; and, that there was absolutely no showing
instead, he asked "Bantil" if he had any qualms about it, and without any that appellants cooperated in the shooting of the victim despite their
provocation, Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the forehead of "Bantil". proximity at the time to Edilberto.
"Bantil" was able to parry the gun, albeit his right finger and the lower But the evidence on record does not agree with the arguments of accused-
portion of his right ear were hit. Then they grappled for its possession until appellants.
"Bantil" was extricated by his wife from the fray. But, as he was running
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |3

On their defense of alibi, accused brothers Severino and Rudy Lines claim 125 having been positively established, all doubts that they were not privy to
that they were harvesting palay the whole day of 11 April 1985 some one the plot to liquidate alleged communist sympathizers are therefore removed.
kilometer away from the crime scene. Accused Roger Bedaño alleges that he There was direct proof to link them to the conspiracy.
was on an errand for the church to buy lumber and nipa in M'lang, Cotabato, There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to
that morning of 11 April 1985, taking along his wife and sick child for commit a crime and decide to commit it. 22It is not essential that all the
medical treatment and arrived in La Esperanza, Tulunan, past noontime. accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. 23 It
Interestingly, all appellants similarly contend that it was only after they heard is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is
gunshots that they rushed to the house of Norberto Manero, Sr., Barangay singularity of purpose, and unity in its execution is present. 24
Captain of La Esperanza, where they were joined by their fellow CHDF The findings of the court a quo unmistakably show that there was indeed a
members and co-accused, and that it was only then that they proceeded community of design as evidenced by the concerted acts of all the accused.
together to where the crime took place at Km. 125. Thus —
It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi must not only The other six accused, 25 all armed with high powered
be at some other place but that it must also be physically impossible for him firearms, were positively identified with Norberto Manero, Jr.
to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 14 and Edilberto Manero in the carinderia of Reynaldo
Considering the failure of appellants to prove the required physical Deocades in La Esperanza, Tulunan, Cotabato at 10:00
impossibility of being present at the crime scene, as can be readily deduced o'clock in the morning of 11 April 1985 morning . . . they
from the proximity between the places where accused-appellants were were outside of the carinderia by the window near the table
allegedly situated at the time of the commission of the offenses and where Edilberto Manero, Norberto Manero, Jr., Jun Villamor,
the locus criminis, 15 the defense of alibi is definitely feeble. 16After all, it has Elpidio Manero and unidentified members of the airborne
been the consistent ruling of this Court that no physical impossibility exists in from Cotabato were grouped together. Later that morning,
instances where it would take the accused only fifteen to twenty minutes by they all went to the cockhouse nearby to finish their plan
jeep or tricycle, or some one-and-a-half hours by foot, to traverse the and drink tuba. They were seen again with Edilberto Manero
distance between the place where he allegedly was at the time of and Norberto Manero, Jr., at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of
commission of the offense and the scene of the crime. 17 Recently, we ruled that day near the house of Rufino Robles (Bantil) when
that there can be no physical impossibility even if the distance between two Edilberto Manero shot Robles. They surrounded the house of
places is merely two (2) hours by bus. 18 More important, it is well-settled Domingo Gomez where Robles fled and hid, but later left
that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over when Edilberto Manero told them to leave as Robles would
the positive identification of the authors of the crime by the prosecution die of hemorrhage. They followed Fr. Favali to Domingo
witnesses. 19 Gomez' house, witnessed and enjoyed the burning of the
In the case before Us, two (2) eyewitnesses, Reynaldo Deocades and Manuel motorcycle of Fr. Favali and later stood guard with their
Bantolo, testified that they were both inside the eatery at about 10:00 firearms ready on the road when Edilberto Manero shot to
o'clock in the morning of 11 April 1985 when the Manero brothers, together death Fr. Favali. Finally, they joined Norberto Manero, Jr.
with appellants, first discussed their plan to kill some communist and Edilberto Manero in their enjoyment and merriment on
sympathizers. The witnesses also testified that they still saw the appellants in the death of the priest. 26
the company of the Manero brothers at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon when From the foregoing narration of the trial court, it is clear that appellants were
Rufino Robles was shot. Further, at 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon, not merely innocent bystanders but were in fact vital cogs in perpetrating the
appellants were very much at the scene of the crime, along with the Manero savage murder of Fr. Favali and the attempted murder of Rufino Robles by
brothers, when Fr. Favali was brutally murdered. 20 Indeed, in the face of the Manero brothers and their militiamen. For sure, appellants all assumed a
such positive declarations that appellants were at the locus criminis from fighting stance to discourage if not prevent any attempt to provide
10:00 o'clock in the morning up to about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the assistance to the fallen priest. They surrounded the house of Domingo
alibi of appellants that they were somewhere else, which is negative in Gomez to stop Robles and the other occupants from leaving so that the
nature, cannot prevail. 21 The presence of appellants in the eatery at Km. wounded Robles may die of hemorrhage. 27Undoubtedly, these were overt
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |4

acts to ensure success of the commission of the crimes and in furtherance of xxx xxx xxx
the aims of the conspiracy. The appellants acted in concert in the murder of Q What about Efren Pleñago?
Fr. Favali and in the attempted murder of Rufino Robles. While accused- A He also agreed and even commented
appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots themselves, their collective laughing "go ahead".
action showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts. Q Roger Bedaño, what was his reaction to
While it may be true that Fr. Favali was not originally the intended victim, as that suggestion that should they fail to kill
it was Fr. Peter Geremias whom the group targetted for the kill, Fr. Peter, they will (sic) kill anybody
nevertheless, Fr. Favali was deemed a good substitute in the murder as he provided he is an Italian and if not, they will
was an Italian priest. On this, the conspirators expressly agreed. As witness (sic) make Reynaldo Deocades an example?
Manuel Bantolo explained 28 — A He also agreed laughing.
Q Aside from those persons listed in that Conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design being sufficiently
paper to be killed, were there other persons shown, the act of one is the act of all the other conspirators, and
who were to be liquidated? the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes
A There were some others. secondary. 30
Q Who were they? The award of moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 to the
A They said that if they could not kill those congregation, the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME) Brothers, is
persons listed in that paper then they will not proper. There is nothing on record which indicates that the deceased
(sic) kill anyone so long as he is (sic) an effectively severed his civil relations with his family, or that he disinherited
Italian and if they could not kill the persons any member thereof, when he joined his religious congregation. As a matter
they like to kill they will (sic) make Reynaldo of fact, Fr. Peter Geremias of the same congregation, who was then a parish
Deocades as their sample. priest of Kidapawan, testified that "the religious family belongs to the natural
That appellants and their co-accused reached a common understanding to family of origin." 31 Besides, as We already held, 32 a juridical person is not
kill another Italian priest in the event that Fr. Peter Geremias could not be entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot
spotted was elucidated by Bantolo thus 29 — experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings,
Q Who suggested that Fr. Peter be the first serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. It is only when a juridical
to be killed? person has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation,
A All of them in the group. that moral damages may be awarded.
Q What was the reaction of Norberto Neither can We award moral damages to the heirs of the deceased who may
Manero with respect to the plan to kill Fr. otherwise be lawfully entitled thereto pursuant to par. (3), Art. 2206, of the
Peter? Civil Code, 33 for the reason that the heirs never presented any evidence
A He laughed and even said, "amo ina" showing that they suffered mental anguish; much less did they take the
meaning "yes, we will kill him ahead." witness stand. It has been held 34 that moral damages and their causal
xxx xxx xxx relation to the defendant's acts should be satisfactorily proved by the
Q What about Severino Lines? What was his claimant. It is elementary that in order that moral damages may be awarded
reaction? there must be proof of moral suffering. 35 However, considering that the
A He also laughed and so conformed and brutal slaying of Fr. Tulio Favali was attended with abuse of superior
agreed to it. strength, cruelty and ignominy by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
Q Rudy Lines. the pain and anguish of the victim, outraging or scoffing at his person or
A He also said "yes". corpse, exemplary damages may be awarded to the lawful heirs, 36 even
Q What do you mean "yes"? though not proved nor expressly pleaded in the complaint, 37 and the
A He also agreed and he was happy and amount of P100,000.00 is considered reasonable.
said "yes" we will kill him.
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |5

With respect to the civil indemnity of P12,000.00 for the death of Fr. Tulio
Favali, the amount is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with existing
jurisprudence, which should be paid to the lawful heirs, not the PIME as the
trial court ruled.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from being in accord with law and the
evidence is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity which is
increased from P12,000.00 to P50,000.00 is awarded to the lawful heirs of
the deceased plus exemplary damages of P100,000.00; however, the award
of moral damages is deleted.
Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Padilla and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |6

SECOND DIVISION run to the Hilltop where he was able to ask for help before falling
[G.R. No. 132330. November 28, 2000] unconscious.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SPO1 JOSE Cogasi woke up to find himself confined at the Baguio General Hospital
BANGCADO[1] and PO3 CESAR BANISA, accused-appellants. together with Clemente. There Cogasi learned that Lino and Adawan died
DECISION from gunshot wounds in their heads.Cogasi himself suffered a gunshot
BELLOSILLO, J.: wound at the neck, at the junction of his left jaw near the ear, while
SPO1 JOSE BANGCADO and PO3 CESAR BANISA appeal from the Clemente received two (2) gunshot wounds on his right shoulder with one
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City convicting them of two (2) (1) of the bullets being lodged just below his right eye.
counts of murder and two (2) counts of frustrated murder, imposing upon After their release from the hospital, Cogasi and Clemente filed a
them the corresponding prison terms, and to pay damages plus costs.[2] complaint with the NBI in Baguio City. On 8 July 1993, four (4) civilian males
The facts: On 27 June 1993, at around 8:30 in the evening, Pacson were presented to Cogasi for identification by the NBI, but he told them that
Cogasi, Julio Clemente, Leandro Adawan and Richard Lino were at the the suspects were not among those present. Clemente did not participate in
Skyview Restaurant, Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, drinking and listening the identification process because of his eye injury.
to folksongs. Moments later, a group of five (5) arrived and sat one table In the morning of 10 July 1993 Bangcado and Banisa reported for their
away from Pacson Cogasi and his friends. Among the newcomers was a thin regular rank inspection at the La Trinidad Police Station. The policemen were
person wearing a blue long-sleeved jacket, later identified as SPO1 Jose told to remain in formation after the inspection. Cogasi went around the
Bangcado, and a heavier one wearing a t-shirt and maong pants, later formation four (4) or five (5) times before pointing to Bangcado and then to
identified as PO3 Cesar Banisa. The rest of their group were not identified. Banisa. Clemente also went around the formation but despite going around
At that time, members of the police force of Baguio City were longer than Cogasi, Clemente was unable to identify anybody. Clemente
conducting Operation Kapkap at the Skyview Restaurant. They however started to point to James Tagle but withdrew his identification of him when
exempted the table of PO3 Cesar Banisa as they knew him to be a fellow some people then present laughed and shouted "Hoy!" and "Sabali!"
policeman. meaning "Wrong!" or "Different!" Accused-appellants insist that Clemente
At around 9:00 o'clock that evening, Cogasi and his friends left the could not have made a reliable identification of them at the NBI and La
restaurant to go home. They were residents of La Trinidad, Benguet. As they Trinidad line ups, nor even in open court, because his eye injury blurred his
went behind the restaurant where their Ford Fierra was parked, they noticed vision.
SPO1 Jose Bangcado and PO3 Cesar Banisa following them. Cogasi and his The rule is that positive identification of witnesses prevails over the
group recognized Bangcado and Banisa to be customers at Skyview simple denial of the accused. It cannot be doubted that Clemente and Cogasi
Restaurant. Bangcado and Banisa approached them. First, Banisa asked had a good view of the faces of the accused. From the testimonies of various
Richard Lino for a light. Then Bangcado and Banisa asked the group if they witnesses, including PO3 Jimmy Baybay, one of the policemen who
were willing to be frisked. Since the two (2) police officers were armed with conducted Operation Kapkap, the Skyview Restaurant was well-
handguns and smelled of liquor, the group agreed to be frisked. As Leandro lighted.Banisa himself testified that although the lighting may be "somewhat
Adawan stepped aside to urinate, Bangcado slapped him and then asked the dim," he could still recognize a person from a distance of four (4)
group where they came from. Their answer was, from Besao, Mt. Province, meters.[3] This is relevant considering that the two (2) groups were seated
except Clemente who said that he came from Balili, La Trinidad. Bangcado, only one (1) table apart. Thus, Cogasi and his friends were able to recognize
with Banisa standing guard behind him with a drawn gun, ordered Cogasi, their assailants as the persons who came out from the Skyview Restaurant.
Clemente, Adawan and Lino to form a line against the Ford Fierra facing him The crime scene was illuminated by two (2) streetlights and the lights
in that order. Adawan was only one meter away from Bangcado. Lino and coming from the nearby Garden Inn and various sari-sari stores. The fact
Cogasi were about 1-1/2 meters away, while Clemente, four (4) meters that the policemen who responded to the report of the incident had to use a
away. Without any warning, Bangcado suddenly fired his gun in quick flashlight in their investigation did not prove that the area was so dark as to
succession at the four (4) persons lined up against the Ford Fierra. Cogasi preclude the identification of the persons involved. For one thing, the
saw Adawan and Lino fall down. Cogasi then felt he was hit on the left side policemen had to be careful not to overlook any piece of evidence, such as a
of his neck and he also fell down. He managed however to crawl away and spent bullet. For another, SPO4 Antonio Naungayan of PNP Baguio City, who
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |7

was part of the investigating team, testified on cross-examination that even these four (4) had no connection with the crime, there was no reason for
if the area was not brightly lighted, one could still recognize Cogasi to implicate any of them in the murder.
people.[4] According to Clemente, he was only four (4) meters away from his The defense also points out that the policemen who
attackers when they fired upon him and his friends. Cogasi was only 1-1/2 conducted Operation Kapkap indicated in their joint affidavit that they only
meters away while Adawan and Lino, who died on the spot, were each only saw Banisa present inside the Skyview Restaurant, along with three (3)
about a meter away. unidentified companions. According to the defense, this only proves that
It cannot be doubted that Cogasi and Clemente had enough time to Bangcado was not there since the policemen personally knew Bangcado and
take a good look at their assailants faces who conversed with their victims, thus should have included him in their joint affidavit.
ordered them to fall in line, frisked them one by one, and asked them However, the theory of the trial court that the reason why they did not
questions before shooting them. When Bangcado and Banisa leaned over to see Bangcado with Banisa was because he went to the washroom or
frisk Cogasi and his friends, their faces must have only been inches away elsewhere deserves credence. Considering that the Skyview Restaurant had
from their victims; and when they ordered their victims to line up against the some thirty (30) to fifty (50) customers that night; that the four (4)
vehicle, they stood only a few meters away. policemen were busy going around the tables conducting Operation KapKap;
Although Clemente admitted to be suffering from blurred vision, Cogasis that they did not approach the table of Banisa to frisk him and his
positive identification of appellants could be sufficient to establish their companions because they recognized him as a policeman, then it is evident
identities. Indeed, there is no law that requires that the testimony of a single that their attention was elsewhere, and that they did not bother to inquire
witness must be corroborated except, of course, when expressly whether Banisa had other fellow officers with him. Further, the policemen
mandated. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, in determining the testified that they were in the restaurant for only a few minutes.
credibility of witnesses and the value of each piece of evidence. In fact, the Further, PO Delfin Balan-eg, one of the policemen who
testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to conducted Operation Kapkap, testified that he saw Bangcado and Banisa
convict,[5] and must be given full faith and credence when no reason to drinking beer inside the restaurant. The defense tried to destroy his
falsely testify is shown.[6] credibility by establishing that he and the two (2) victims as well as the two
Assuming arguendo that Clemente was unable to identify accused- (2) complaining witnesses were related. However, it must be stressed, that
appellants during the line-up in La Trinidad as his right eye was still relationship, much less bias, cannot be established by the fact that two (2)
bandaged from his injuries, he was able to make a positive identification in persons live in different barangays that form part of the same town.
open court. Neither is it material now that Clemente made some attempts to The defense insist that neither could Cogasis testimony be given any
point to policeman James Tagle for it seems clear that he withdrew his weight since his testimony in open court contradicted his sworn affidavit
identification.Besides, Clemente admitted candidly that he could not identify executed immediately after the incident before the investigating
anyone in the line-up since his right eye was still covered with a bandage officer. While he testified that he saw the accused emerge from the Skyview
and was still suffering from blurred vision. Restaurant, in his affidavit, he swore that their attackers actually alighted
Further, the defense failed to shake Cogasis certainty, either when he from a red -colored car. The theory of the defense is that if the gunmen
declared that he recognized accused-appellants as being those who were alighted from a red or maroon colored car immediately before the shooting,
earlier in the Skyview Restaurant, or when he pointed to them in the line-up then they could not have come from the Skyview Restaurant, and vice versa.
at La Trinidad. The fact that he took some five (5) minutes and had to go An affidavit taken ex parte is judicially considered to be almost
around the line-up four (4) or five (5) times did not detract from his incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions and
credibility. Rather, it is to his credit that he took time to look closely into the sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which
faces of more than twenty-four (24) or so similarly garbed men to make sure the witness may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary
that he did not make a mistake in identifying his assailants. for his accurate recollection of the incident.[7] Further, an examination of
Neither should the defense attempt to mislead the Court by pointing out Cogasis sworn statement shows, however, that there was actually no
that Cogasi was not able to identify Bangcado during the NBI line-up since it contradiction. His testimony was as follows: "x x x I noticed a maroon car x x
is clear that that line-up did not include accused-appellants. Instead, it was x I noticed also two persons who were immediately following us went (sic)
composed of four (4) civilians, none of whom he had ever seen before. Since near the parked maroon car and one of them opened the door at the drivers
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |8

side but immediately closed it."[8] Quite obviously, the two (2) persons who The alibi of PO3 Cesar Banisa was even more incredible. He admitted
emerged from the Skyview Restaurant intended to board the parked car but being at the Skyview Restaurant when Cogasi and his friends were there, but
changed their minds and, instead, followed Cogasi and his friends to the claimed that he left with his brother to eat mami and siopao at the Baguio
Ford Fierra that was parked. First Hotel, which is only about a hundred (100) to a hundred and fifty (150)
The accused-appellants raise the defense of alibi which is inherently meters away from Skyview Restaurant and could be reached in five (5)
weak. To prosper, alibi must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that minutes of walking.[15] He explained however that "this bold admission x x x
the accused could not have been physically present at the crime scene at the placing him within the vicinity of the crime scene shows his clear
time of the incident.[9] The alibis of the accused clearly show upon conscience. For, if he was involved in the crime, he would naturally put
examination that this could not have been so. himself in other places."[16] His testimony was corroborated by Abelardo
Bangcado testified that he stayed at home because he served his tour Lucas who testified that he, along with Arsenio Palileng and Raymund
of duty from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. the previous day. Thus, on the day Banisa, accused-appellants brother, was with Banisa that night.
of the incident, he was at home where he slept, read the newspapers, While flight of an accused is competent evidence to establish prima
watched television and played with his one-year-and-seven-month old facie his guilt, there is no law or principle that non-flight per se is proof, let
daughter. After dinner, he took a nap until his mother-in-law woke him up alone conclusive proof, of innocence.Much like the defense of alibi, non-flight
before 11:00 p.m. so he could report to the police station before 12:00 cannot prevail against the weight of positive identification of the
midnight. As police officer assigned to patrol his area of responsibility, his job accused.[17] It is more credible to believe that Banisa had no choice but to
was to ride in the police vehicle going around La Trinidad.[10] This was tell the truth regarding his presence at the Skyview Restaurant because four
confirmed by Bangcado's mother-in-law Angela Gondales when she testified (4) policemen who knew him well saw him there while they were
for the accused. conducting Operation Kapkap.
Yet, Bangcado himself told the court that Central Pico, La Trinidad, PO3 Banisa further claims that his group stayed at the Baguio First
Benguet, where his mother-in-laws house stood, was only five (5) kilometers Hotel Restaurant for only ten (10) minutes and then went down the road to
away from Skyview Restaurant and could be negotiated in thirty (30) the jeepney station where they boarded a jeepney at 9:00 o'clock in the
minutes using a motor vehicle.[11] The fact that La Trinidad was only thirty evening bound for La Trinidad and got home after twenty-five (25) to thirty-
(30) minutes away from Baguio City was corroborated by Banisa five (35) minutes. Yet he also testified that the boarding station for jeepneys
himself.[12] And Bangcados house is near a national highway where jeepneys bound for La Trinidad was only across the road from Skyview Restaurant.
pass by on their way to Baguio City, which means, it was not impossible for SPO1 Jose Bangcado and PO3 Cesar Banisa could have accosted their
Bangcado to have left the house earlier than 11:00 p.m. and be in Baguio victims, gone back to Skyview Restaurant and joined their companions who
City at the time of the incident. may have thought that they (Bangcado and Banisa) just went to the comfort
The defense failed to establish with credible evidence that SPO1 Jose room or stepped out for some fresh air. Abelardo Lucas himself testified that
Bangcado was on duty from 11:00 o'clock in the evening to 8:30 the while they were at the Skyview Restaurant his companions would frequently
following morning. SPO4 Lilia Pascual, Records Custodian of the PNP at La stand up and leave, purportedly to go to the restroom.
Trinidad, Benguet, testified that there was no record of the attendance of The defense bewails the fact that nothing seemed to have been done to
PNP officers from June to December 1993. SPO4 Carlos Layagan, Bangcados the deformed slug found near the body of the deceased Richard Lino, nor to
Patrol Section Supervisor, testified that on that day, Bangcado was present the other slug extracted from Clemente, and that no ballistics examination
for his regular tour of duty from 12:00 o'clock midnight to 8:00 o'clock the was conducted to determine from what caliber they were fired and if the gun
following morning and conducted routine patrol by mobile, [13] but the used was the same. Investigators did not even cause the surrender of
incident occurred at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening according to the accused-appellants firearms for examination and comparison. Neither were
police who responded when the crime was reported to them. Thus, accused-appellants required to undergo a paraffin test.
Bangcado had plenty of time to do what he did and still go on his tour of Nonetheless, a ballistics examination is not indispensable, and even if
duty. More damaging was the admission of Layagan in his cross-examination another weapon was in fact actually used in killing the victim, still the
that before 12:00 o'clock midnight of 27 June 1993 he was not in the accused cannot excape criminal liability therefor as he was already positively
company of SPO1 Jose Bangcado.[14] identified.[18] Because credible witnesses had already demonstrated accused-
 Criminal Law September 17 Page |9

appellants' culpability, there was no need to present further evidence linking right to counsel attaches from the moment the investigation starts, i.e.,
them to the crime. There is no requirement of a certain quantum of evidence when the investigating officer begins to ask questions to elicit information
before one may be justly convicted of an offense except when specifically and confessions or admissions from the accused.
required by law. The only requisite then is that the guilt of the accused is From the testimony of the victims as well as from the physical evidence,
proved beyond reasonable doubt.[19] it seems that SPO1 Bangcado was the lone gunman, while PO3 Banisa
Accused-appellants insist that they had no motive to shoot the victims merely stood behind him with his gun drawn. In his testimony, Cogasi
and/or the complaining witnesses. However, even the absence of a known narrated how the shooting occured -
motive, the time-honored rule is that motive is not essential to convict when Q: You testified that the thin one who called himself Jose Bangcado
there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. [20] Lack of motive does not pointed a gun at Leandro Adawan, what type of gun is (sic) that x x
preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused xx
therein are definitely shown,[21] particularly when we consider how A: It was black and short.
nowadays, it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or Q: What about the fat man at that time, was identified as Cesar Banisa,
committed serious offense for no reason at all.[22] what was he doing at that time?
The defense also tried, but failed, to establish that Cogasi and Clemente A: He was also standing beside him and was holding his gun.
knew beforehand that Bangcado and Banisa were policemen as they all lived Q: Would you illustrate to this Court how Jose Bangcado pointed a gun at
and worked together in the same neighborhood. This allegation is not Leandro Adawan?
sufficient to prove that the witnesses for the prosecution had any ill motive A: Witness stretch[ed] both his arms and clasped his hands together with
to testify against accused-appellants. When there is no evidence to show any the forefinger extended in front of him.
improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely Q: After you saw Jose Bangcado point a gun at Leandro Adawan, what
against an accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, else transpired, Mr. Witness?
the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the A: He suddenly fired his gun.
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[23] Q: To whom Mr. Witness did he fire his gun?
The defense also assails the conclusion reached by the trial court that A: He fired his gun to the four of us.
the accused were guilty because they remained silent when they were Q: After firing his gun what else transpired, Mr. Witness?
pinpointed by Cogasi during the police line-up. The trial court asked, "Is it A: I just felt that I fell down.
not that 'Qui tacen concentire videtur,' meaning, 'Silence means Q: Why did you fall down?
consent'?"[24] A: Because I was shot.[27]
Although the Rules of Court provides that an act or declaration made in On cross-examination, Cogasi affirmed his sworn statement taken by
the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or the investigating officer immediately after the incident wherein he referred to
says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action only one (1) gunman who did the shooting. He further testified that he heard
or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may four (4) successive shots when the gunman started shooting, then heard
be given in evidence against him,[25] courts should be cautious in interpreting more shots only after he had succeeded in running away.
silence against the accused. Further, the facts do not support the conclusion On his part, Clemente attested in his sworn statement that "the man in
that the accused remained silent. Both Bangcado and Banisa gave their jacket then ordered us to line up. After we have formed a line, he started
individual reactions during the line-up but police discipline kept them from shooting at us starting from the left. He shot first Leandro, then Richard and
breaking rank.[26] As police officers, they are bound by the strict discipline of followed by Pacson. After hearing the shots and seeing my companions fall, I
their profession, as well as an awareness of their rights to remain silent and turned my back and held my nape with my two (2) hands and started to run
to avail of the services of counsel. These rights are not diminished by the but I got hit and fell. I got up and tried to run but I fell down again."[28]
fact that they are policemen. On the other hand, during his direct examination Clemente testified -
However, the trial court ruled, and correctly so, that at the time of the Q: Now, Mr. Witness, when these two (2) persons followed you and your
police line-up, accused-appellants were not yet under the custody of the companions, what did you observe from them that time?
police agencies. Their rights had not yet been restricted or curtailed. The A: They have (sic) guns, sir.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 10

Q: What kind of guns do (sic) they have? the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. [32] In this
A: Short and black, sir. case, treachery was not present. In a long line of cases, the Court held that
Q: And were they holding their guns? "the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed
A: They were holding their guns, sir x x x x victim without the slightest provocation on his part."[33]
Q: After you were made to fall in line, what happened next? To ensure that he was not in any risk, accused-appellant Bangcado
A: He pointed a gun, sir. frisked and searched Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan and Lino to see if they were
Q: Who pointed the gun to whom? concealing any weapons. After making sure that the victims were unarmed,
A: The thin man pointed his gun at Leandro Adawan, sir. Bangcado directed the victims to form a line against the Ford Fierra to
Q: What else transpired after that? separate the victims from each other and so that the latter could not rush to
A: They fired their guns at us, sir. their friends defense. Because Bangcado and Banisa were holding handguns,
Q: Who shot at who (sic)? Cogasi and his friends did as they were told and were caught unaware when
A: The two (2) of them, sir, because there were two of them.[29] they were shot. In fact, Adawan and Lino died of gunshot wounds in the
On cross examination, Clemente testified - head, while Cogasi and Clemente only sustained head wounds that did not
Q: So, you said on that date you were frisked and then later on lined-up prove fatal.
and when you heard successive shots, you fell down? In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime,
A: When I heard the three (3) successive shots, I saw one pointing the the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and
gun again at me, so, I turned around and prepared to run, but I was the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the
hit, sir. When I turned my back and started to run, I was hit, sir. participants is liable only for his own acts.[34] Consequently, Banisa must be
Q: So, because you turned your back, you did not really see who actually absolved from criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims. It is clear
shot you? that neither the victims nor Banisa could have anticipated Bangcados act of
A: I saw the thin one point the gun at me and both were armed with shooting the victims since the attack was sudden and without any reason or
guns, sir x x x x purpose. Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not yet been revealed
Q: So, you want to tell the court that it was the thin one who shot you prior to the killings.
because he was holding the gun that way, is that correct? For public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance,
A: I do not know because both of them have (sic) guns, sir. But I saw the the public official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy which his
thin one pointing a gun at me, sir.[30] office gives him in realizing his purpose. If the accused could have
Thus, as to the identity of the gunman, it is apparent that both perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no abuse
witnesses were positive only as far as Bangcado was concerned. However, it of public position.[35] Hence, that aggravating circumstance cannot be
seems that they only concluded that Banisa participated in the shooting appreciated here. While it may seem that accused-appellants intended to
because he was also holding a gun. The failure of the surviving victims to assert their authority as policemen and encourage in the victims minds the
assert with confidence that Banisa also fired his gun raises reasonable doubt belief that they were part of Operation KapKap when they frisked the
as to whether he participated in the shooting. victims, both Cogasi and Clemente testified that they never told the
Accused-appellants deny the existence of treachery, nighttime and investigating officers that their assailants might be policemen. In fact,
abuse of public position to aggravate the commission of the crimes. It is because the assailants were not in uniform, they believed the latter to be
settled that qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed but must be civilians.
established by clear and convincing evidence, as conclusively as the killing The defense claims that the injuries of the surviving victims were not
itself.[31] The defense alleges that there is no evidence that accused- serious enough to classify the attack under the frustrated stage, therefore,
appellants made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to they committed only attempted homicide. However, the doctors who
insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the attended to the surviving victims testified that had they not treated Cogasi
person attacked to defend himself. For treachery to be considered, two (2) and Clemente's injuries the latter would have suffered from infection which
elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives could result in their death. It is clear that only timely medical attention saved
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) both victims from imminent death.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 11

Accused-appellants deny that there was an offer to compromise when customs and traditions were initiated by acknowledged leaders x x x in an
their relatives visited Miguel Adawan, the 81-year old father of Leandro effort to prevent further deterioration of the relations between the tribes." [45]
Adawan. The old Adawan in tears testified that he came to know of the The general rule is that claims for actual damages should be supported
accused Bangcado and Banisa through their relatives when the latter came by actual receipts. However, it is undisputed that the victims are members of
to his house in Besao, Mt. Province. Although the incident occurred on 27 the indigenous community and were buried according to their customs and
June 1993, the first visit was sometime in April 1995 when Magdalena traditions. The relatives of the victims attested that they incurred expenses
Mabiasan, the mother of Jose Banisa came "for a possible settlement of the for the caao, the traditional gathering of Igorots. The Court is not unaware
case."[36] Again, sometime in August or September 1996, Bangcados wife that the informal market system still governs the economic transactions of
and parents, along with Banisas mother Magdalena, visited him at Pico, La indigenous communities. Thus, receipts and other documents do not play a
Trinidad.[37] large role in their daily commercial transactions. In this case, wherein it is
The defense claims that the only reason the relatives of accused- clearly established that the claimants were indeed members of indigenous
appellant went to visit and talk to Miguel Adawan was to prevent him from communities, then the court should allow reasonable claims for expenses
avenging his sons death on the families of accused-appellant, in keeping with incurred in relation to traditional burial practices.
the tradition of the Igorot indigenous people. Therefore, this cannot be The heirs are also entitled to damages for the loss of earning capacity
interpreted as an implied admission of guilt. Moreover, Sec. 27 of Rule of the deceased Leandro Adawan. The fact that the prosecution did not
130[38]contemplates an offer of compromise from the accused himself. There present documentary evidence to support its claim for damages for loss of
is no showing that the visits were made with the knowledge or upon the earning capacity of the deceased does not preclude recovery of the
instructions of accused-appellants. Thus, even if the purpose of the visit was damages.[46] Testimonial evidence is sufficient to establish a basis for which
to negotiate a settlement, accused-appellants had nothing to do with it, since the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate of the damages for the
they were neither participants nor initiators.[39] loss of earning capacity.[47] Moreover, in fixing the damages for loss of
The trial court believed in the testimony of Adawan, compared to that of earning capacity of a deceased victim, the Court can consider the nature of
the relatives of accused-appellants who could be biased, partial and, of its occupation, his educational attainment and the state of his health at the
course, hoping to save the two (2) accused from the serious predicament time of his death.[48] The testimony of Adawans father sufficiently established
they were in.[40] It posited this question: the basis for making such an award. It was shown that Adawan was thirty-
But why is it that during the first time that they approached the 77-year seven (37) years old at the time of his death in 1993 and earned P4,000.00 a
old man Adawan in Besao, Mountain Province, they were already assured month as a mechanic.
that the family of the deceased Adawan would not take revenge and for the Hence, in accordance with the American Expectancy Table of
last three years, nothing happened to the families of the accused, still they Mortality adopted by this Court in several cases,[49] the loss of his earning
again went to the residence of Miguel Adawan at Pico, La Trinidad, capacity is to be calculated as follows:
Benguet. This would only show that they tried to amicably settle the cases, Net Earning Capacity (x) = Life Expectancy x Gross annual income living
but they were rebuffed.[41] expenses (50% of gross annual income)
But an offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot where life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of deceased [37 years])
amount to an admission of the party himself.[42] Although the Court has held x = 2/3 x (80 - 37) x [(P4000.00 x 12) - (P4000.00 x 12)50%]
in some cases that an attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the x = 2/3 x 43 x [P48,000.00 - P24,000.00]
case is an implied admission of guilt,[43] we believe that the better rule is that x = [2/3 x 43] x P24,000.00
for a compromise to amount to an implied admission of guilt, the accused x = 28.67 x P24,000.00
should be present or at least had authorized the compromise. x = P688,080.00
In People v. Macatana[44] it was held: "No implied admission can be Since Leandro Adawan was thirty-seven (37) years old at the time of his
drawn from the efforts to arrive at a settlement outside the courts, primarily death, his life expectancy was 28.67 years. Considering that his average
because appellant did not take part in any of the negotiations. The efforts to monthly income was P4,000.00, his gross annual income would
settle the case x x x in accordance with the established Muslim practices, be P48,000.00. Using the above formula, the victims unearned income would
thus be P688,080.00.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 12

On the other hand, the Court has no basis to award damages for Since the crime was committed on 27 June 1993, the penalty for
Richard Lino loss of earning capacity because the prosecution failed to murder prescribed by Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to its
introduce any evidence on this matter. amendment by RA 7659, which took effect only on 31 December 1993,
Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 (consistent with prevailing should be applied in imposing the penalty for frustrated murder,
jurisprudence) is automatically granted to the offended party, or his/her i.e., reclusion temporal maximum to death.
heirs in case of the formers death, without need of further evidence other The penalty for frustrated murder is one (1) degree lower than that
than the fact of the commission of any of the aforementioned crimes prescribed by the Penal Code for the consummated offense, hence, the
(murder, homicide, parricide and rape). Moral and exemplary damages may imposable penalty for frustrated murder should be prision mayor maximum
be separately granted in addition to indemnity. Moral damages can be to reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
awarded only upon sufficient proof that the complainant is entitled thereto in and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance present in the
accordance with Art. 2217 of the Civil Code, while exemplary damages can commission of the offense, the penalty to be imposed for the frustrated
be awarded if the crime is committed with one or more aggravating murder shall be taken from the range of prision correccional maximum
circumstances duly proved. The amounts thereof shall be at the discretion of to prision mayor medium or four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day
the courts.[50] to ten (10) years as minimum, to the medium period of prision
Under present case law, the award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is mayor maximum to reclusion temporal or twelve (12) years five (5) months
mandatory upon the finding of the fact of murder. Moral damages, vis-a- and eleven (11) days to fourteen (14) years ten (10) months and twenty
vis compensatory damages or civil indemnity, are different from each other (20) days as maximum. Hence, an indeterminate prison term of eight (8)
and should thus be awarded separately.[51] Thus, as explained in People v. years two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as
Victor,[52] the indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil liability ex minimum to fourteen (14) years four (4) months and ten (10) days
delicto for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing of reclusion temporal medium as maximum may be considered reasonable
judicial policy and aside from other established actual damages, is itself for the frustrated murder under the facts of this case.
equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. It is not to be WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo in Crim. Cases Nos.
considered as moral damages thereunder, the latter being based on different 11619-R to 11622-R imposing reclusion perpetua for the two (2) counts of
jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound murder and the indeterminate prison term of prision mayor in its medium
discretion.[53] period to reclusion temporal in its medium period for two (2) counts of
In People v. Victor the Court increased the civil indemnity for rape frustrated murder on both accused-appellants SPO1 Jose Bangcado and PO3
committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which Cesar Banisa is MODIFIED as follows:
the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, 1. In Crim. Case No. 11619-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado
from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. The Court held that "This is not only a is found GUILTY of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code
reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the qualified by treachery, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the
financial fluctations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of heirs of the victim Richard Lino P75,000.00 as indemnity for his
the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity." [54] It is death, P59,300.00 as actual damages, P200,000.00 as moral damages, and
submitted that the heirs of victims of murder, which is also a heinous crime, to pay the costs;
should not receive less than what victims of rape receive as civil 2. In Crim. Case No. 11620-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado
indemnity. If the civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused is found GUILTY of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the offense, qualified by treachery, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the
all the more reason should the same minimum amount be imposed on those heirs of the victim Leandro Adawan P75,000.00 as indemnity for his
convicted of murder, as more often than not the victims who are killed leave death, P93,100.00 as actual damages, P200,000.00 as moral damages, and
behind grieving families who are depended upon them for support. Thus, to pay the costs;
indemnity of P75,000.00 should therefore be reckoned for each count of 3. In Crim. Case No. 11621-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado
murder committed by accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado. is found GUILTY of frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 6 of
the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 13

the absence of modifying circumstances, he is sentenced to an indeterminate

prison term of eight (8) years two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision
mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years four (4) months and ten
(10) days reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, for the frustrated
murder of the victim Julio Clemente, and pay him P100,000.00 as moral
damages, and to pay the costs; and,
4. In Crim. Case No. 11622-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado
is found GUILTY of frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 6 of
the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in
the absence of modifying circumstances, he is sentenced to an indeterminate
prison term of of eight (8) years two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision
mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years four (4) months and ten
(10) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, for the frustrated
murder of Pacson Cogasi, and pay him P100,000.00 as moral damages, and
to pay the costs.
There being no finding of conspiracy with accused-appellant SPO1 Jose
Bangcado, PO3 Cesar Banisa is ACQUITTED of all the charges against him
and, consequently, is ordered released from custody in connection with
herein cases, unless he is held for other lawful causes.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 14

Republic of the Philippines maul said MARIEL CARIQUEZ Y CRUZ in the

SUPREME COURT different parts of her body, thereby inflicting
Manila upon her mortal wounds which directly
FIRST DIVISION caused her death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
G.R. No. 129304 September 27, 1999 The witnesses presented by the prosecution were Lilia Gojul, Michelle
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Torrente, Theresa Castillo, Dr. Antonio Vertido, Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida,
vs. SPO3 Adonis Bacarra, Dr. Arsenio Pascual, and Benilda Almario. Lilia Gojul is
AVA MA. VICTORIA CARIQUEZ y CRUZ, and LEEZEL FRANCO y AVA's sister. The relevant and material facts established by their testimonies
SAMSON, accused-appellants. are faithfully summarized in the Appellee's Brief, as follows:
Mariel Cariquez y Cruz, fondly called Ethel, was two and a-
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: half years old when she and her mother, Ava Cariquez,
This is an appeal from the decision 1 of 19 March 1997, of the Regional Trial moved in sometime in January 1996 to No. 116 Royal
Court of Pasig City, Branch 163, in Criminal Case No. 110410 convicting Townhomes, San Rafael Mandaluyong City. Ava's sister, Lilia
accused-appellants Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez y Cruz (hereafter AVA) and C. Gojul moved in with them (TSN, October 16, 1996, pp. 5-
Leezel Franco y Samson (hereafter LEEZEL) of the crime of parricide and 6, 32). She slept with the little girl in one of the two
homicide, respectively. bedrooms on the house (TSN, Ibid., p. 12). Ava had a
In an Information 2 dated 30 May 1996, AVA and LEEZEL were initially housemaid named Elizabeth Patao, who also watched over
charged with serious physical injuries under Section 10, Article VI of R.A. No. Mariel or Ethel (TSN, October 16, 1996, pp. 6,8). At the
7610. 3 However, on 31 May 1996 the victim, Mariel Cariquez y Cruz time, Ava had a live-in partner, Leezel Franco (TSN, October
(hereafter ETHEL) died. On 30 August 1996 the information was amended to 16, 1996, pp. 5-6, 49). He was not the father of Ethel,
charge AVA and LEEZEL with the crime of parricide. The Amended however (TSN, ibid., p. 51).
Information 4 reads: Ava's household was not at all peaceful because almost
The undersigned State Prosecutor of the Department of everyday, Ava and Leezel quarreled, "nagbubugbugan"
Justice, accuses AVA MA. VICTORIA CARIQUEZ Y CRUZ and (TSN, October 16, 1996, pp. 9, 11; October 29, 1996, pp.
LEEZEL FRANCO Y SAMSON of the crime of Parricide defined 29, 40-41). Ava and Leezel were then taking or using drugs
and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, (TSN, October 16, 1996, p. 39).
as amended by Sec. 5 of R.A. 7659 committed in the In the middle of March 1996, Lilia Gojul left Ava's household
manner herein narrated as follows: and went to live in her home at Urduja Village, Novaliches,
That on or about the 27th day of May 1996, Quezon City (TSN, October 16, 1996, p. 6).
in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a In the meantime, the little girl caught the attention of their
place within the jurisdiction of this neighbors as she was cute and friendly. While the neighbors
Honorable Court, accused AVA MA. became fond of "Ethel," they however found Ava and Leezel
VICTORIA Y CARIQUEZ, being then the aloof and snobbish (October 29, 1996, pp. 9, 30, 21).
mother of a 2 1/2 years old child, MARIEL On April 14, 1996, Lilia visited Ava and her niece at the
CARIQUEZ Y CRUZ, conspiring and Royal townhomes but she was shocked to see Ethel's
confederating together with Leezel Franco Y appearance; her hair was shaven, her face was full of
Samson, and mutually helping and aiding contusions, her neck had faded cigarette burns while her
one another, with intent to kill, evident arms and legs had traces of pinching and maltreatment. She
premeditation, taking advantage of superior also had marks of "black-eye" on both eyes. Lilia also
strength and treachery, did then and there, noticed Ethel's knees with contusions due to prolonged
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, beat and kneeling. (TSN, October 16, 1996, pp. 12, 13). When Lilia
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 15

asked the little girl to identify who inflicted the injuries on Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida attended to her and in the course
her body, Ethel tearfully pointed to Ava and Leezel (TSN, of taking her medical history, he interviewed the mother,
October 16, 1996, p. 14). Lilia confronted Ava about her and Ava Cariquez. Ava at first told the doctor that it was her
Leezel's treatment of Ethel (Ibid., p. 13). brother, the patient's uncle, who mauled the child and
Neighbors were hearing the little girl crying everyday, inflicted upon her serious injuries. Ava later changed her
morning, noon, evening, and even at 1:00 o'clock or 2:00 story, saying that the little girl actually fell from the stairs
o'clock in the morning (TSN, October 29, 1996, p. 8, 29-30). (TSN, ibid., pp. 9-10, 25-27).
Sometime in April, Michelle Torrente, an occupant of Unit A CT-scan was taken of the child and the results showed a
114, was aghast to see her shaven, with bruises all over her combination of chronic and acute subdural hematoma on the
body and wounds in her arms and legs (TSN, ibid., pp. 10, left frontotemporoparietal (front side and apex) convexity of
130. Ethel also had cigarette burns, and when Michelle the brain. Massive edema and musk effect in the left
asked what happened, Ethel replied: "pinaso po ako." When cerebral hemisphere and right fronte-parietal lobe were
Michelle further asked who burned her and caused her noted. A fracture was also noted on the left frontal bone
bruises, Ethel said, "Papa ko po," referring to Leezel Franco (TSN, ibid., p. 11). Blood clot was found in almost the entire
(TSN, ibid., pp. 11-13). cerebral hemisphere. He also found soft tissue injuries, i.e.,
The little girl's shaven head and bruises were also noticed by hematoma and abrasions, in other parts of the body
Theresa Castillo, an occupant of unit 115, adjacent to Ava's (TSN, ibid., p. 42). Dr. Bienvenida noted that the injury on
residence. When she asked Ethel's "yaya" why this was done the head was a "confluent injury," which means that it was
to the little girl, the "yaya" answered, "parusa" (TSN, sustained on different dates (TSN, ibid. p. 40); one portion
October 16, 1996, p. 150). of the injury was "resolving hematoma" which was at least
The next time that Lilia visited Ava and her daughter was on two (2) years old, while the more acute injury was sustained
May 12, 1996. At the time, Ava's housemaid has already left within 24 hours from his examination (TSN, ibid. p. 41).
the household. On that occasion, Lilia observed that Ethel Ethel was thereafter confined at the Intensive Care Unit of
was sickly and had even more contusions than the last time the hospital, attached to a respirator (TSN, ibid., p. 16). She
she saw her in April. Out of pity for the little girl, Lilia tried to was classified as a "brain-dead" patient (Ibid., p. 18).
persuade Ava that she take custody of Ethel (TSN, October Ethel's condition however grew worse and she eventually
16, 1996, p. 15). Ava agreed to her suggestion and wrote a died on May 31, 1996 at about 10:20 in the morning. After
note where she passed on to Lilia Gojul the guardianship of her death, the life support system was removed (TSN, ibid.,
Ethel Cariquez (TSN, ibid., pp. 16, 19; Exhibit A). However, p. 18; Exhibit E). The cause of death was "cardio respiratory
on May 14, 1996, Lilia had to leave Ava's household without arrest secondary to multiple organ system failure, severe
bringing Ethel with her (TSN, October 16, 1996, p. 21). Ethel massive crania-cerebral trauma" (TSN, ibid. p. 23; Exhibit C-
cried silently when Lilia left (TSN, ibid., pp. 22, 36). Lilia 2).
heard nothing from them after that.1âwphi1.nêt Dr. Antonio Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, conducted an
On May 27, 1996, around 3:00 or 4:00 o'clock in the autopsy on the little girl's body (TSN, November 7, 1996, p.
afternoon, Ethel was brought in an ambulance from the 4). The doctor made the following significant findings:
Mandaluyong Medical Center to the Cardinal Santos fracture linear, right middle cranial fosse; abrasion, right
Memorial Hospital at Greenhills, San Juan (TSN, November forehead; contusion, right leg; contusion-abrasion left face;
14, 1996, pp. 8; 29). At the time, she was unconscious and hematoma, forehead right and hematoma, scalp, right
was assisted by an ambu bag, unable to breathe on her fronto-parietal (Exhibit D). In his autopsy report, Dr. Vertido
own. Her body was limp and she had prominent bruises on concluded that the cause of death was Traumatic Head
the forehead and the right cheek (TSN, ibid., pp. 8, 16). Injury, Severe (Exhibit D-2). 5
AVA and LEEZEL were the witnesses presented by the defense.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 16

According to AVA, during their breakfast at about 7:30 a.m. on 27 1996, she daughter. This was repeated several times. When she noticed ETHEL was
talked with LEEZEL about their up-coming concert on 1 June 1996 at Subic. having difficulty in breathing, she ran to the comfort room in order to give
Then, she went out of the house to make a telephone call. When she left the ETHEL a shower to revive her, at the same time applying mouth to mouth
house, her daughter ETHEL was eating while LEEZEL was playing the guitar. resuscitation to her. She went out of the bathroom to bring ETHEL to the
When she returned she saw ETHEL playing with the food. She told ETHEL to hospital. 10
hurry up as she was going with her to the office, but ETHEL stubbornly In her reply-affidavit AVA declared that when she returned home after
looked at her and continued to play with her food. She again told ETHEL to making a telephone call, she found LEEZEL hit ETHEL with the buckle of his
hurry up and finish her food. ETHEL still said "No." To her repeated order to belt. That was not the first time that she saw him hit ETHEL; he used to hit
do so, ETHEL also repeatedly said, "No." AVA then got a plastic belt and hit her whenever he is high on drugs and ETHEL was noisy playing. On those
ETHEL with it on the buttocks a number of times, which made ETHEL cry. occasions LEEZEL use to hit AVA and they end up fighting because AVA
Since ETHEL continued to be hard-headed, AVA held her on the shoulder. always tried to protect ETHEL from harm.
ETHEL struggled and slipped AVA's hold, got out of balance, and fell. ETHEL AVA tried to diminish the value of these admissions in her affidavit and reply-
hit the sofa and when she bounced back her head hit the edge of the affidavit by testifying that she did not read them before signing and she
cemented stairs. AVA got shocked and noticed LEEZEL stop playing his guitar signed under a state of shock. 11
and shout: "Ava yoong anak mo." AVA then held ETHEL and gave her LEEZEL offered two versions for his defense. In his counter-affidavit 12 of 11
mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Seeing ETHEL's serious condition, LEEZEL June 1996, he declared that during breakfast in the morning of 27 May 1996,
suggested to AVA to bring ETHEL to the hospital, which they did, at first to he and AVA talked about the band and their concert in Subic. Thereafter,
the Mandaluyong City Hospital and because the hospital cannot provide the AVA told him that she was going to make a phone call outside of the house.
best medical care, to the Cardinal Santos Memorial Hospital, where she was Before leaving, she ordered ETHEL to hurry up with her food because she
brought to and confined at the hospital's Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Early on was to go with AVA to the latter's office. However, when AVA returned,
the morning of 28 May 1996, AVA went to the Mandaluyong Police Station to ETHEL had not finished eating. AVA hit ETHEL very hard, whipped her with a
get her car and to find out the reason why her car was impounded. She was belt, held her by the arms and pushed her, sending ETHEL to hit the corner
not able to get the car. Instead, she was detained at about 8:00 p.m. of 28 of the sofa and then to bounce, causing her head to hit the end of the
May 1996. AVA came to know that the police found drugs in her car, for cemented stairs and to fall to the floor. ETHEL was on the verge of death.
which reason she was detained. 6 Three (3) days after her detention, Lilia AVA was shocked. Seeing this, LEEZEL picked up ETHEL and brought her to
Gojul, her sister, went to jail and asked her to sign some papers and asked the comfort room where he poured water on her. Thereafter, he and AVA
her permission to take off the respirator of ETHEL in the hospital. She did brought ETHEL to the hospital. 13
not give her permission. 7 But, in his testimony in court LEEZEL declared that his statement in his
On cross-examination, AVA declared that the cigarette burns on ETHEL's counter-affidavit that AVA pushed ETHEL, causing the latter to fall and to hit
body were caused by sprinkling oil while their maid was cooking; LEEZEL had the cemented stairs was only narrated to him by AVA and that he never
nothing to do with any of the child's bruises or injuries; when Lilia Gojul, her witnessed the incident. 14He further declared that he had nothing to do with
sister visited her in jail, the former told her that she should point to LEEZEL ETHEL's injuries and the testimony of Lilia Gojul is not true. Lilia had an
as the one responsible for ETHEL's death, otherwise, she will do something ulterior motive against him because on one occasion he prevented Catherine,
to her; and that she has no personal relation with LEEZEL. However, in her Lilia's daughter from entering AVA's house and because of that Lilia, her
affidavit, 8 dated 1 June 1996, and in her reply-affidavit, 9 AVA pointed to husband and her sons Caesar and Julius kicked him and hit him with a chair.
LEEZEL as the one responsible for ETHEL's injuries, stating that when she Finally, LEEZEL claimed that he had no idea as to what happened to ETHEL;
returned home after making a phone call from outside the house, she found all that he saw was the child lying on the floor, and he then helped AVA
LEEZEL hit ETHEL with the buckle of a belt at the back and front of her bring the child to the hospital. In the hospital, he was asked by the police to
head. She tried to stop him but he pushed her. As LEEZEL continued to hit go with them to the Complaints and Investigation Division of the
ETHEL with the belt, what she did was to get the antenna of the TV and hit Mandaluyong City Police, where he stayed for more than four hours. Since
LEEZEL with it at his hand causing him to release the same. She then got the police conducted no formal investigation on him, he left for home. 15
hold of ETHEL but because LEEZEL pushed her she fell to the floor with her
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 17

In its decision 16 of 19 March 1997, the trial court found AVA and LEEZEL the thought of an impending death and was related to Lilia many days
guilty of parricide and homicide, respectively. It decreed as follows: before the incident.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused LEEZEL further asserts that only AVA was formally charged, hence there is
AVA Ma. Victoria Cariquez y Cruz and Leezel Franco y no case against him.
Samson guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the The trial court convicted AVA and LEEZEL on the basis of circumstantial
crime of Parricide and homicide respectively and considering evidence. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict provided the
the mitigating circumstance that they did not intend to following requisites are present, namely: (1) there is more than one
commit so grave a wrong as that committed and there being circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived from are
no aggravating circumstances on record, imposes upon — proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
a) Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 17 The circumstantial
the penalty of reclusion evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of events so as to lead to a fair
perpetua, and reasonable conclusion that points to the guilt of the accused. 18 In the
b) Leezel Franco the Appellee's Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General enumerates seven (7)
indeterminate penalty of circumstantial evidence which the trial court took into account and relied
eight (8) years and one (1) upon as bases for its finding that AVA and LEEZEL, were criminally
day of prision mayor a responsible for the death of ETHEL, to wit:
minimum to fourteen (14) 1. In 14 April 1996, prosecution principal
years eight (8) months and witness, Lilia Gujol, saw Ethel shaven, with
one () day of reclusion many contusions on her face, black eyes,
temporal as maximum; cigarette burns on her arms and neck, and
c) To pay the costs. several marks of maltreatment on her legs
Any detention service rendered by the accused should be and both knees as well as traces of pinching
credited in their favor computed pursuant to Batas all over her body. When asked who caused
Pambansa Blg. 85. her those injuries, the 2 year old girl pointed
AVA and LEEZEL appealed to us from the decision. to her own mother, Ava, and her mother's
In their Appellants' Brief, AVA and LEEZEL interpose this lone assignment of live in partner, Leezel Franco;
error: 2. When Lilia next saw Ethel on 12 May
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING 1996, Ethel had even graver injuries and
BOTH ACCUSED WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR was sickly. Again, Ethel pointed to
CONVICTION. appellants Ava and Leezel as the ones who
In support thereof, they argue that the prosecution's principal witness Lilia caused her the injuries.
Gojul, as well as the other witnesses never saw how ETHEL sustained the 3. Michelle Torrente, a resident of the unit
injuries inflicted on her; Lilia never testified that during her stay in AVA's adjacent to the townhouse unit occupied by
house the child was the object of their quarrel; the prosecution's evidence is Ava Cariquez, Leezel Franco and Ethel
purely hearsay, conjectural and fails to show any conspiracy that they Cariquez, testified that she used to hear
maltreated and caused ETHEL's death; her death was purely accidental; only Ethel crying between 1:00 to 2:00 in the
circumstantial evidence is on record against them there was no evil motive morning. She further testified that one day
on their part to kill ETHEL. she saw Ethel with bruises and cigarettes
They characterized the report of ETHEL to Lilia Gojul as to the former's burns and when asked what happened to
shaven head and injuries as hearsay and cannot be considered an exception her, Ethel replied, "pinaso po ako;" Ethel
to the hearsay rule because it was not made on an impending death or with pointed to her Papa Leezel as the one who
did it to her.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 18

4. Theresa Castillo, another occupant of an In April 1996 Michelle Torrente was aghast to see ETHEL's head shaven, with
adjacent unit, also testified that she often bruises all over her body and wounds in her arms and legs, 22 as well as
saw Ethel bruised and crying and sometime cigarette burns. When she asked what happened, ETHEL replied: "pinaso po
in April, saw her head shaven. When she ako." When she further asked her who burned her and caused her bruises,
asked the "yaya" why Ethel's hair was ETHEL said, "Papa ko po," referring to LEEZEL. 23
shaved, the "yaya" answered "parusa." Theresa Castillo also noticed ETHEL's shaven head and body bruises. When
5. Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida, the doctor who she asked ETHEL's yaya why this was done to the child, the yaya answered,
attended to Ethel at the Cardinal Santos "parusa". 24
Memorial Hospital, opined that the injuries The declarations of Lilia, Michelle and Theresa as to what they observed on
found on the head of Ethel were inflicted on ETHEL were not hearsay. They saw her and personally noticed the injuries
different dates. and telltale marks of torture. While the answer of ETHEL as to who inflicted
6. Dr. Bienvenida further testified that in the the injuries may have been, indeed, hearsay because ETHEL could not be
course of taking the medical history of the confronted on that, yet it was part of the res gestae and, therefore, an
child, he interviewed the mother, Ava exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules
Cariquez, who gave conflicting accounts as of Court, which reads:
to how the child got injuries: while the Sec. 42. Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person
mother initially said that her daughter was while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately
mauled by her uncle (AVA's brother), she prior or subsequently thereto with respect to the
later changed her story by claiming that the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of
child fell from the stairs. the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
7. Dr. Vertido testified that the cause of equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
death was traumatic Head Injury, Severe significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
Aside from the foregoing circumstantial evidence, the trial court also took There are three requisites to the admission of evidence as constituting part
into account AVA's affidavit (Exhibit "R"), reply-affidavit (Exhibit "S"), and of the res gestae. (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
LEEZEL's counter-affidavit (Exhibit "T"), as well as the circumstances of the occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to
apprehension of the two by authorities for illegal possession of "shabu" and contrive or devise; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence
AVA's judicial admission that ETHEL slipped from her hold, fell and her head in question and its immediately attending circumstances. 25 In this case the
hit the cemented floor. startling occurrences were the tortures inflicted on ETHEL, who when asked
We are fully convinced from the evidence on record of the culpability of AVA who caused them spontaneously pointed to AVA and LEEZEL. That some
and LEEZEL for ETHEL's maltreatment. The testimony of Lilia Gojul, Michelle time may have lapsed between the infliction of the injuries and the
Torrente and Theresa Castillo ineluctably show that AVA and LEEZEL disclosure, it must however, be pointed out that there has been no
tormented ETHEL. Where ETHEL dwelt was not a home; it was not even a uniformity as to the interval of time that should separate the occurrence of
house. It was hell. AVA and LEEZEL considered ETHEL not as a child with the startling event from the making of the declarations. What is necessary is
human dignity and an object of love as children should be, but an unwanted that the injuries sustained by ETHEL prior to the incident on 27 May 1996
object against whom they could vent everything from frustrations to anger were inflicted by AVA and LEEZEL. These acts are covered by and punished
and hate. What Lilia saw on ETHEL was truly shocking — an innocent child under R.A. No. 7610, under which they were originally prosecuted. However,
with shaven hair; with a face full of contusions; a neck with faded cigarettes the then Information was amended to charge them with parricide under
burns; arms and legs with traces of pinching and maltreatment; "black-eyed" Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence on the prior incidents
eyes; and contused knees due to prolonged kneeling. 19 When Lilia asked cannot legally justify a conviction for the physical injuries inflicted before 27
the little girl to identify who inflicted the injuries on her body, ETHEL tearfully May 1996.
pointed to AVA and LEEZEL. 20 Lilia confronted AVA about her and LEEZEL's The issue then that must be resolved is who was or were responsible for the
maltreatment of the child. 21 act on 27 May 1996, which caused or resulted in the death of ETHEL? On
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 19

this the prosecution failed to offer any direct evidence. The circumstantial conclusion that AVA and LEEZEL conspired to maltreat, injure, inflict pain,
evidence the trial court appreciated related to acts or events which torture ETHEL and they were united in that purpose and intention. The
happened before 27 May 1996. totality of their evil deeds demonstrated beyond doubt their resolve to
Yet, these prior acts are inseparable from that which happened on 27 May pursue with persistence their common objective, which eventually resulted in
1996. The latter was the coup de grace. Fortunately, for the prosecution, the death of ETHEL. As amply demonstrated by the evidence, ETHEL's
AVA offered two versions. The first was that she offered at the witness stand injuries, particularly that on the head, in addition to those on the body, were
in open court, i.e., ETHEL's death was due to an accident. The second was sustained not only on the date of the fateful incident but on dates before the
narrated in her affidavit (Exhibit "R") and reply-affidavit (Exhibit "S"), where day of the incident. Thus, Bienvenida testified that: he noted that the injury
she pointed to LEEZEL as the culprit. We cannot allow her to disown her on the head was a "confluent injury," which means that it was sustained on
affidavit and reply-affidavit as the explanation given for that is very flimsy different dates; 30 one portion of the injury was "resolving hematoma" which
and incredible, and clearly concocted to exculpate LEEZEL and at the same was at least (2) days old, while the more acute injury was sustained within
to absolve herself under a claim of accident. Her affidavit and reply-affidavit 24 hours from his examination. 31 Likewise, the result of the CT-Scan which
were prepared at her instance long before she took the witness stand. In a was taken on the child showed a combination of chronic and acute subdural
manner of speaking they were given voluntarily and spontaneously long hematoma on the left fronto-temporoparietal (front side and apex) convexity
before the prospect of a court trial became imminent and the dismissal of of the brain. Massive edema and musk effect in the left cerebral hemisphere
the cases against her was her goal. That she told the truth in her affidavit and right fronto-parietal lobe were noted. A fracture was also noted on the
and reply-affidavit cannot escape the verdict of rational minds. left frontal bone. Blood clot was found in almost the entire cerebral
AVA's story of "accident" cannot, likewise, work in her favor. hemisphere. Also found were soft tissue injuries, i.e., hematoma and
Accident is an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal abrasions, in other parts of the body. 32 In the autopsy conducted by Dr.
Code, In order that accident may exempt an accused from criminal liability, it Vertido of the NBI, the doctor concluded as the cause of Ethel's death:
must be shown that the accused was performing a lawful act with due care; "Traumatic Head Injury." 33
the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and there must be no fault Indisputably, AVA committed the crime of parricide under Article 246 of the
or intent to cause the injury on the part of the accused. 26 Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, which is punished
The defense of accident shifted to AVA the burden of the evidence and it by reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that no modifying circumstances
was incumbent upon them to prove that they were exempt from criminal were proven, then pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the
liability. It is at once evident from the story foisted to the trial court by AVA lesser of the penalty, i.e., reclusion perpetua, was correctly imposed by the
while she was on the witness stand that the requisites of accident as an trial court on AVA. LEEZEL was correctly held liable for the crime of homicide
exempting circumstance were not proven. On the contrary, the totality of her only as he was a stranger to the victim, ETHEL. Previous to its amendment
story proved beyond reasonable doubt that ETHEL was maltreated and by R.A. 7610, the penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised
pushed hard driving her head to the cemented stairs and causing the injuries Penal Code, was reclusion temporal. As amended by R.A. 7610, the penalty
which were the proximate cause of her death. for homicide in cases where the victim is a child below twelve (12) years of
We agree with the trial court's appreciation of conspiracy against AVA and age is reclusion perpetua. The second paragraph of Section 10 of Article VI
LEEZEL. The rule is well settled that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of of R.A. 7610 provides, as follows:
all, and each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes committed by the For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of
other conspirators. 27 Proof of conspiracy need not be direct but may be acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2,
inferred from proof of facts and circumstances. 28 If it is proved that two or and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide,
unlawful object each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently other intentional multilation, and serious physical injuries,
independent were in fact connected, indicating a closeness of formal respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is
association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred under twelve (12) years of age . . . . (Emphasis supplied)
though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. 29 The Accordingly, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed
facts and circumstances proven in this case unerringly lead us to a upon LEEZEL. His claim that he was not charged in the amended
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 20

information is absolutely wanting in basis. He was, although for

parricide, but, he could legally be convicted of homicide, which is
necessarily included in that charged.
WHEREFORE, the decision, dated 19 March 1997 of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City, Branch 163, in Criminal Case No. 110410 finding accused-
appellant Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez y Cruz and Leezel Franco y Samson
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Parricide and
Homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 246 and Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code, respectively, and imposing, with respect to appellant
Ava Cariquez, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is hereby AFFIRMED, but
MODIFIED as to the penalty for Leezel Franco y Samson and as so modified,
he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
decision is further MODIFIED by directing accused-appellants Ava Carinquez
and Leezel Franco y Samson to pay jointly and severally the heirs of ETHEL
Cariquez, except accused-appellant Ava Cariquez, the death indemnity in the
amount of P50,000.00.
Costs against accused-appellants.1âwphi1.nêt
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan, Pardo and Santiago, JJ., concur.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 21

EN BANC That on or about August 11, 1984, in the municipality of Lambunao, province
[G.R. No. 125539. July 27, 1999] of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO named three (3) accused, with deliberate intent, and without any justifiable
PATALIN, JR., ALEX MIJAQUE, AND NESTOR RAS, accused- motive, conspiring, confederating and working together with Richard Doe,
appellants. Philip Doe and Robert Doe who are still at large, all armed with firearms and
other deadly weapons, thereby performing [sic] themselves into a band,
DECISION entered the dwelling of Jesusa Carcillar, and once inside, with intent to gain
MELO, J.: and with violence against, and/or intimidation of persons, did then and there
Accused-appellants Alex Mijaque and Alfonso Patalin, Jr. were charged wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away Five Hundred
before Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court of the 6th Judicial Region (P500.00) Pesos in cash, one (1) ring worth Two Thousand (P2,000.00)
stationed in Iloilo City, with the crime of robbery. * The Amended Information Pesos, one (1) pair of earrings worth One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos, and
dated October 11, 1985 charged: one (1) Seiko wrist watch worth Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos, making
That on or about August 11, 1984, in the municipality of Lambunao, province a total of Six Thousand Five Hundred (P6,500.00) Pesos, against the will
of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above and/or consent of the owner; that on the occasion thereof, the above-named
named two (2) accused, conspiring, confederating and cooperating with three (3) accused, conspiring and working together with their companions
three (3) others whose identities are still unknown and who are still at large, who are still at large, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
armed with bladed weapons by means of force, violence and intimidation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Perpetua
taking advantage of the nighttime to better realize their purpose, and in the Carcillar, Juliana Carcillar, Rogelia Carcillar and Josephine Belesario, against
dwelling of the offended party, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and their will and consent.
feloniously take, steal and carry away, with intent to gain, cash amount of CONTRARY TO LAW.
Three Hundred (P300.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, owned by the victim (pp. 90-91, II Record.)
Corazon Aliman and the following personal property: one (1) adjustable Upon arraignment on November 12, 1985, accused-appellants entered a
wrench, one (1) vise grip, one (1) screw driver, one (1) pair of levis pants, plea of not guilty to both crimes charged (p. 103, II Record).
one (1) travelling bag and one (1) wallet containing ten (P10.00) pesos, with After trial on the merits, a joint judgment was rendered, disposing:
a total value of Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, owned Wherefore, premises considered there being sufficient and satisfactory proof
by the victims Reynaldo Aliman and Josephine Belesario, the over all total of showing that the accused in these two cases are guilty beyond reasonable
cash and personal property being SEVEN HUNDRED (P700.00) PESOS, doubt of the charges filed against them, they are hereby sentenced as
Philippine Currency, without the consent of the above-mentioned offended follows:
parties and to their damage and prejudice in the aforestated amount; that by a) In Crim. Case No. 18376 for Robbery with Physical Injuries, accused
reason or on the occasion of said Robbery, the above named two (2) Alfonso Patalin, Jr. and Alex Mijaque are penalized to suffer the
accused did then and there hack victim Reynaldo Aliman twice hitting him indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Ten (10) years, and One (1) day of
and inflicting wounds which required medical attendance of more than thirty Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) years and Four (4) months of
(30) days, as well as inflict physical injuries to the other victims Corazon Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, to indemnify Corazon Aliman the amount
Aliman and Josephine Belesario causing them to sustain injuries requiring of P700.00 representing the value of her property robbed from her and also
medical attendance for several number of days. to indemnify Reynaldo Aliman the amount of P8,000.00 representing the
CONTRARY TO LAW. expenses he incurred for his medication and hospitalization due to the
(pp. 92-93, II Record.) wounds he suffered.
In a Second Amended Information also dated October 11, 1985 and b) In Criminal Case No. 18305 for Robbery with Multiple Rapes, accused
docketed as Criminal Case No. 18305, accused-appellants Alex Mijaque, Alfonso Patalin, Jr., Alex Mijaque and Nestor Ras are sentenced to a death
Alfonso Patalin, Jr., and Nestor Ras were charged before the same court with penalty and to indemnify the members of the Carcillar family the amount of
the crime of robbery with multiple rape, thusly: P6,500.00 representing the cash and articles taken from them.
In both cases the accused are also ordained to pay the costs.
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 22

SO ORDERED. At about 7:30 in the evening of August 11, 1984, while Reynaldo Aliman, his
(p. 80, Rollo.) half sister Josephine Belisario, and their mother Corazon Aliman were having
The trial court arrived at the aforestated conclusion based on the a conversation inside their house at Barangay Lumanay, municipality of
following findings: Lambunao, province of Iloilo, appellant Alfonso Patalin, Jr., who was outside
Criminal Case No. 18376 the fenced perimeter of said house, called out Reynaldo Aliman by his
The crime of robbery (with physical injuries) was indeed committed by nickname and asked the latter to let him and the other persons with him in
accused-appellants Alfonso Patalin, Jr. and Alex Mijaque, as well as by their (pp. 5-6, TSN, Dec. 16, 1986).
unidentified companions, based on the positive identification made by Reynaldo Aliman opened the window and, because of the moonlight, saw
complaining witness Corazon Aliman, and corroborated by her son Reynaldo appellant Alfonso Patalin, Jr. with (2) other persons. Appellant Alfonso
and the latters half sister Josephine Belisario (p. 77, Rollo). Patalin, Jr. asked again Reynaldo Aliman to let them in (pp. 7-8,
Criminal Case No. 18305 ibid.). Reynaldo Aliman opened the gate and Alfonso Patalin together with
Accused-appellants Alfonso Patalin, Jr., Alex Mijaque, and Nestor Ras, his companions, one of whom is appellant Alex Mijaque, entered the
as well as an unidentified companion, acted in concert to commit the crime premises (pp. 8, 10-11, ibid.). Immediately upon entering, appellant Alfonso
of robbery with multiple rape. They were positively identified by the following Patalin, Jr. pointed the beam of his flashlight at Reynaldo Aliman. At this
witnesses: Juliana Carcillar who was raped twice by Alex Mijaque; Josephine juncture, appellant Alex Mijaque hacked Reynaldo Aliman twice with a bolo
Belisario who was raped once by Alex Mijaque; Rogelia Carcillar who was hitting the latter at the neck, right arm, and the chest (pp. 14-16,
raped by Alex Mijaque; and Perpetua Carcillar, who was raped by Nestor ibid.). Thereupon, Reynaldo Aliman immediately ran away (p. 17, ibid.).
Ras, after Alfonso Patalin, Jr. failed in his attempt to rape her. Accused- Corazon Aliman and Josephine Belisario, who went to the balcony of their
appellant Patalin was likewise identified by Reynaldo Aliman who personally house, witnessed the hacking incident and the former shouted for help (p. 6,
knew him as a former barangay-mate for along time, as well as by Corazon TSN, July 21, 1987; pp. 8-9, TSN, June 30, 1988). Two of the assailants, one
Aliman, mother of Reynaldo. The identification of accused-appellants was of whom is appellant Alex Mijaque, pushed Corazon Aliman and Josephine
facilitated and aided by a bright full moon and due to the fact that they Belisario inside their house, covered their mouth and told them not to make
tarried in the crime scene for a long period of time, thus allowing their any noise. Later, appellant Alex Mijaque dragged Josephine Belisario to the
victims to imprint in their memory the countenance or visage of accused- house of the latters aunt (sister of Corazon Aliman) which is beside their
appellants. Said positive and clear identification by the complaining house. The other man stayed put and while holding a double-bladed knife,
witnesses, who were not shown to have any ill motive to falsify the truth and threatened to kill Corazon Aliman if the latter will not give him money. After
to implicate accused-appellants, prevails over the latters defense of Corazon Aliman gave him three hundred pesos (P300.00) cash, he ransacked
denial. Band, nocturnity, and dwelling, were likewise appreciated against the house and took one (1) wrist watch, one (1) vise grip, one (1) screw
accused-appellants (pp. 78-79, Rollo). driver, one (1) pair of Levis trousers, one (1) travelling bag, and one (1)
The errors assigned by accused-appellants in their individual briefs are wallet containing ten pesos (P10.00); the total value thereof is seven
summarized as follows: (1) The trial court erred in finding that accused- hundred pesos (P700.00) inclusive of the three hundred pesos (P300.00)
appellants are responsible for the crimes charged; (2) The trial court erred in cash. Thereafter, the man also dragged Corazon Aliman to her sisters house
convicting accused-appellant Patalin notwithstanding the fact that the latter (pp. 6-8, TSN, July 21, 1987; pp. 11-12, TSN, June 30, 1988).
was arrested without a warrant; (3) Assuming without conceding that Josephine Belisario, who was dragged by Alex Mijaque to her aunts house
accused-appellants (Patalin and Ras) committed the crimes charged, the trial which is just twenty (20) meters away, saw six (6) persons, one of whom is
court erred in imposing the penalty of death as the same was suspended appellant Alfonso Patalin, Jr., outside the house of her aunt. Josephine
upon the ratification of the 1987 Constitution (pp. 86, 146, 204, Rollo). Belisario was forced to call out her aunts name and ask that the door be
The prosecutions version of the August 11, 1984 incident, based on the opened for her. While the door was being opened, it was kicked by one of
testimony of prosecution witnesses Dr. Edgardo Carmelo, Dra. Leticia Sitchon the six (6) persons. Alfonso Patalin immediately went in, boxed the aunt of
Santiago, Reynaldo Aliman, Corazon Aliman, Josephine Belisario, Juliana Josephine Belisario on the body and announced that they are staging a hold-
Carcillar, Rogelia Carcillar, and Perpetua Carcillar, is summarized in the up. The other companions of appellant Alfonso Patalin, Jr., including
Solicitor Generals consolidated Brief, as follows: appellant Alex Mijaque, who were armed with knives, a bolo, and a gun also
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 23

went in and restrained Josephine Belisarios cousins, namely Rogelia, Juliana, appellant Alex Mijaque brought Juliana Carcillar back inside the house and
Perpetua, Roy, and Victoriano, who are all surnamed Carcillar (pp. 11-15, ordered to look for money. When she told him that they have no more
TSN, June 30, 1988; p. 11, TSN, June 29, 1989). Josephine Belisario money, he kept on harming her. In the course thereof, he found and took a
together with her aunt and cousins were all forced to lie face down on the Seiko wristwatch owned by Perpetua Carcillar. Then, he brought her outside
floor of the sala (p. 15, TSN, June 30, 1988; p. 7, TSN, Feb. 15, the house again where he had a brief conversation with appellants Nestor
1990). Appellant Alfonso Patalin got hold of Mrs. Carcillar (Josephine Ras and Alfonso Patalin. She was then brought back inside the house and
Belisarios aunt and the mother of her cousins), kicked and boxed the latter ordered to lie face down on the floor again. While at this position, appellant
and exclaimed: Money, money. It is money we want. Appellant Alfonso Alex Mijaque approached her and brought her outside the house.She refused
Patalin forced Mrs. Carcillar into a room where the latter gave him money (p. to obey appellant Alex Mijaques order to lie down on the ground so he
16, TSN, June 30, 1988; pp. 7-8, February 15, 1990). Then, appellants and pushed her downwards. Her strength gave out and he succeeded in raping
their companions seized the following personalities of the Carcillars: (1) one her twice. She was then brought back inside the house (pp. 18-21, TSN,
Seiko 5 wristwatch worth three thousand pesos (P3,000.00), (2) two (2) June 29, 1989).
pairs of ladys rings worth two thousand (P2,000.00), (3) one (1) pair of Josephine Belisario, while laying face down on the floor of the sala, was
earrings, and (4) two (2) travelling bags (p. 9, TSN, February 15, 1990). dragged by appellant Alex Mijaque inside one of the rooms. He threatened
Rogelia Carcillar was brought outside their house by appellant Alex Mijaque her with his knife and was able to undress her. He fondled her breasts,
who was armed with a butchers knife and threatened to kill her if she will pulled her pubic hair and eventually succeeded in having sexual intercourse
not lie down. Because of fear, she did as she was told (pp. 10, 16-17, TSN, with her. She was then left inside the room. Two companions of appellant
February 15, 1990). Appellant Alex Mijaque forcibly removed her underwear Alex Mijaque came in bringing with them her cousins Rogelia and Perpetua
and placed himself on top of Rogelia. She tried to resist but appellant Alex Carcillar. One of them saw Josephine Belisario and brought her to another
Mijaque pressed the tip of his knife at the formers neck and succeeded in room. The man demanded money from her but she was not able to give him
having sexual intercourse with her (pp. 11-12, ibid.). Thereafter, appellant money. The man was also carrying a knife and threatened her with the
Alex Mijaque brought her inside the house and ordered her to lie face down same. She resisted when he was forcing her to lie down on the bed but her
on the floor again (pp. 13-14, ibid.). Then, one of the companions of strength finally gave out. He likewise succeeded in having sexual intercourse
appellant Alex Mijaque who was armed with a gun took her outside and with her. After raping her, the man took a piggy bank which was at the foot
brought her to a place not far from where she was raped (p. 14, ibid.). This of the bed and brought her back to the room where she was first raped. Her
man, at the point of a gun, threatened to kill her if she will not obey his aunt and cousins were also inside the said room (pp. 17-25, TSN, June 30,
orders. Rogelia Carcillar, who feared for her life, was left with no choice but 1988).
to obey the mans orders. There, she was raped for the second time by this Perpetua Carcillar suffered the same fate. While laying face down on the
gun-wielding man (pp. 15-16, ibid.). While Rogelia Carcillar was being raped, floor of the living room, she was pulled by the heir by appellant Alfonso
appellant Alfonso Patalin was also outside the house standing on guard (p. Patalin and ordered to stand up. When she stood up, she realized that her
18, ibid.). sister were no longer there. Appellant Alfonso Patalin, armed with a double-
Juliana Carcillar was likewise brought outside the house by appellant Alex bladed knife, brought her outside the house, ordered her to undress and lie
Mijaque who, with his knife, tried to rape her but he initially failed because down. Because of fear, Perpetua Carcillar, who was then only thirteen (13)
of her resistance. This angered appellant Alex Mijaque and he tried to kill years old, obeyed appellant Alfonso Patalin. He tried to force his penis into
Juliana Carcillar by stabbing the latter but was prevailed upon not to do so her vagina but did not succeed. Then, appellant Alfonso Patalin handed her
by one of his companions (pp. 12-15, TSN, June 29, 1989). over to appellant Nestor Ras, a member of their group who was only about
Appellant Alex Mijaque, after delivering fist blows on the body of Juliana two (2) arms length away. Appellant Nestor Ras, armed with a double-
Carcillar, turned her over to one of his companions who was in the garden bladed knife which he was pointing at Perpetua Carcillar, ordered her to lie
outside the house and armed with a gun. This man threatened her with the down. He fondled her breasts, kissed her, and succeeded in having sexual
gun and mauled her. She was overpowered and he undressed her. He intercourse with her. After raping her, appellant Nestor Ras brought her back
inserted his finger on her sex organ and eventually succeeded in having inside the house. When she was returned inside the house, the intruders
sexual intercourse with her (pp. 15-17, ibid.). Then, this companion of
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 24

were still demanding for money from her mother and were taking turns in incised wound on the right forearm, and (5) multiple abrasions at the back
beating the latter (pp. 4, 15-23, TSN, July 12, 1990). including the portion below the waistline, her vagina admits two fingers and
Appellants left, together with the other assailants, taking with them the fresh lacerations in the hymen were noted at eight, eleven, and four oclock
valuables stated earlier after threatening them not to report the matter to positions (pp. 10-15, TSN, November 10, 1986).
the police or else they will return and kill all of them (p. 19, TSN, February Perpetua Carcillar, 13 years old, sustained a 1 centimeter lacerated wound
15, 1990). on the perineum which was also swollen. Her vagina admits two fingers
Reynaldo Aliman was brought to Ricardo Ladrido Memorial Hospital where he snugly (pp. 8-9, ibid). A fresh laceration at six oclock position and a
received first aid. He was then brought to West Visayas Medical Center hematoma also at six oclock position were noted on her hymen (Exhibit C, p.
located in Manduriao, Iloilo (pp. 18-20, TSN, December 16, 1986) and was 15, Record).
treated by Dr. Edgardo Carmelo (p. 4, TSN, May 14, 1986). Reynaldo Aliman (pp. 300-311, Rollo.)
sustained the following injuries: (1) hack wound, mid forearm, area ulnar Denial and alibi were set up by accused-appellants based on their
side middle third forearm, and (2) hack wound, left side of neck (pp. 5-6, testimony and that of their witnesses, Alejandro Tabucan, Felizardo Lebona,
ibid; Exhibit A). Reynaldo Aliman was confined in the hospital for almost Rhodora Losaria, and Cristina Gumban. The denials, together with other
three (3) months and he spent more than eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00) arguments, are summarized as follows:
for medicines, food and other expenditures (p. 19, TSN, December 16, Alfonso Patalin
1986). Accused-appellant Alfonso Patalin alleges that his name was only
Dr. Leticia Sitchon Santiago examined and treated Josephine Belisario two included by Jesus Larang, whom he described as the landlord of Jesusa
days after she was raped. A hematoma, about 3x4 inches in diameter, was Carcillar and the Carcillar sisters, to force him to reveal the names of the
found on the left shoulder of Josephine Belisario which could have been persons who staged the robbery and rape. Verily, he declared on the stand
caused by forcing the latter to lie down on the ground. Josephine Belisario that when the victims saw him at the police station, two of them (Josephine
vagina admits two (2) fingers. Further, hematoma was noted in the hymen Belisario and Reynaldo Aliman) even smiled at him (tsn, August 13, 1993,
at nine oclock and three oclock positions and fresh lacerations was also pp. 10-11, 19-20).
noted at nine, eleven, and three oclock positions. These are indications that In his brief, he argues that he was not positively identified, rationalizing
a foreign object, which could be a human penis, was inserted in the vagina that when prosecution witness Josephine Belisario was asked on the stand if
and caused the lacerations of the hymen (pp. 6-9, TSN, September 3, 1986). she recognized the person who called [her] brother Reynaldo, said witness
Rogelia Carcillar, Juliana Carcillar and Perpetua Carcillar were also examined responded that she did not know the person who called her brother, and
and treated by Dr. Leticia Santiago but such was conducted three days after that she only recognized the callers voice (tsn, August 11, 1988, pp. 30-
the incident (p. 17, ibid). 31). Further, accused-appellant Patalin also alleges that he was arrested
A hematoma was noted in the occipital region of the head of Rogelia Carcillar without a warrant.
(p. 18, ibid). Her vagina admits two fingers snugly and the perineum has a Alex Mijaque
lacerated wound which is one centimeter in length (pp. 18-19, ibid; pp. 2-3, Accused-appellant Alex Mijaque argues that in the sworn statement of
TSN, November 10, 1986). Fresh lacerations were likewise noted in her Reynaldo Aliman (p. 3, II Record), there is no mention of his name nor that
hymen at eight, eleven and three oclock positions (p. 3, TSN, November 10, of accused-appellant Patalin as the perpetrators of the crimes
1986). Dr. Santiago further testified that a foreign object was inserted in the charged. Moreover, during the preliminary examination in the lower court,
vagina of Rogelia Carcillar (p. 19, TSN, September 3, 1986; p. 3, TSN, accused-appellant Mijaque was also not named as one of the malefactors. He
November 10, 1986). likewise points out that in the police blotter, the first report mentioned that
Juliana Carcillar, 22 years old, sustained a hematoma in the forehead, left the alleged offenders were unknown persons. No rape was reported. In the
and right side of the face, upper right arm, uppermost and lower portions of second report, it was blottered that the alleged offenders were four
the left thigh, occipital region of the head and left side of the mouth. She unidentified persons. Again, no rape was reported. Accused-appellant
also sustained the following injuries: (1) cm. lacerated wound on the left side Mijaque likewise takes note of the report given by Rogelia Carcillar who
of the lower lip, (2) bite mark with hematoma on the left shoulder, (3) 1 cm. merely narrated the robbery but did not report any rape.
incised wounds on the right index finger and right thumb, (4) 4 inches
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 25

According to this accused-appellant, the police authorities of Iloilo, was mauled in jail (tsn, July 29, 1993, pp. 10-13). Defense witness,
Manduriao (also referred to in the record as Mandurriao) received a Alejandro Tabucan, neighbor of accused-appellant Mijaque, corroborated the
complaint from a resident thereat that his television set was stolen previous latters alibi that on August 11, 1984, they had a drinking spree from 6 oclock
to the incidents herein involved. Accused-appellant Mijaque was suspected in the evening to 12 oclock midnight, and accused-appellant Mijaque was not
as the thief and was picked up by the agents of the Manduriao Police Station able to leave the premises in Manduriao. Tabucan also said that he saw
without any warrant of arrest and was thence detained for three days Mijaque still asleep the following morning (tsn, August 6, 1993, pp. 4-5, 10).
without any complaint (p. 93, Rollo). Meanwhile, the robbery at Lambunao, Lastly, accused-appellant Nestor Ras declared that he was in the
Iloilo was being flashed at all police stations in Iloilo. The arresting officers of province of Antique (particularly, in Igbangkal, Dao) on August 11, 1984
the Manduriao Police Station, so accused-appellant Mijaque contends, in (tsn, December 17, 1993, p. 4). As corroborative witness, he presented
order to save themselves from charges of arbitrary detention, immediately Cristina Gumban, a vendor who testified that on August 11, 1984, she
referred him for custodial investigation in regard to the Lambunao bought cassava and sweet potatoes from accused-appellant Ras in
robbery.Consequently, three days after his confinement, a criminal complaint Igbangkal, Dao, Antique from 3 oclock to 5 oclock in the afternoon, and that
for robbery with physical injuries and another for robbery with rape was filed he saw Ras put the purchased items in a sack (tsn, March 4, 1994, p. 4).
against him by the Chief of Police of Lambunao, Iloilo. We are not persuaded by the above posturings and are compelled to
Nestor Ras affirm.
The third accused-appellant, Nestor Ras, argues that his name was Of primordial consideration in appellate matters is the legal principle
never mentioned by Dr. Edgardo Carmelo, and that Josephine Belisario was that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimony is a
merely led by the public prosecutor into mentioning his name. He also states matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity
that the witnesses declarations as regards his identification are confusing to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and
and inconsistent (pp. 208-210, Rollo). attitude under grilling examination (People vs. Ombrog, 268 SCRA 93
Further, it is contended that Rogelio Carcillar himself, when asked by [1997]). We generally uphold and respect this appraisal since, as an
the public prosecutor about what happened to his sister Perpetua Carcillar, appellate court, we do not deal with live witnesses but only with the cold
testified that Nothing happened to them (p. 210, id). And when Perpetua pages of a written record (People vs. Herbieto, 269 SCRA 472 [1997]).
Carcillar and the other female prosecution witnesses reported the alleged A close examination of the record convinces us of the prosecution
incident to the police authorities, they never mentioned that they were witnesses credibility, particularly the ravished victims, who, for approximately
raped. two agonizing hours, were subjected to a hellish nightmare occurring in the
As mentioned, all three accused-appellants, aside from denying the very privacy of their own homes.
charges, also presented their respective alibis. Accused-appellant Patalin As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General in its consolidated
testified that he was at home with his parents, wife, and children, at Pandan, brief, the defense was not able to prove any motive on the part of the
Lambunao (tsn, August 13, 1993, pp. 16-17) at the time of the incident. As private complainants to falsely testify that they were robbed and raped by
corroborative witness, he presented Felizardo Lebona, the person in charge accused-appellants. In fact, two of the rape victims, Josephine Belisario and
of the plantation where he was working, who testified that accused-appellant Rogelia Carcillar, were even married to first cousins of accused-appellant
Patalin did not leave the plantation house from August 9 to 12, 1984 (tsn, Patalin (pp. 327-328, Rollo), and would not ordinarily turn against a relative
October 15, 1993, pp. 4-5). although this be by mere affinity unless they really suffered the fate they
For his part, accused-appellant Mijaque insists that he had no narrated.
opportunity to get out of the farm where he was working which was located Accused-appellants rely on the delay or vacillation on the part of the
in Manduriao, Iloilo (tsn, May 6, 1993, p. 6). In July, 1985, he was arrested complaining witnesses. As discussed above in their individual defenses, they
for theft of a television set and detained in the Lambunao jail for emphasize that Reynaldo Aliman failed to mention the names of the
investigation. Although three of the herein complainants were brought in perpetrators in his sworn statement; that on August 11, 1984, Reynaldo
front of his detention cell, he was not identified. Instead, the policemen instructed a relative, Jesus Larang, to report the hacking and robbery
pointed to him and said, That is Alex Mijaque who raped you. If you will not incidents at the Lambunao Police Department, as well as the robbery
include him, he will file a case against you. Moreover, he testified that he committed in the Carcillar household, and that the police blotter stated that
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 26

the alleged offenders were unknown persons but contained no report of any inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than
rape; and that Rogelia Carcillars report did not mention that she was raped. destroy the credibility of a witness to a crime, especially so when the crime is
Time and again, we have ruled that delay in lodging a criminal shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses ( People vs. Agunias,
accusation does not impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is 279 SCRA 52 [1997]).
satisfactorily explained (People vs. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384 [1997]).An With respect to the defenses of denial and alibi, significantly, these
examination of Reynaldo Alimans sworn statement (p. 3, I Record) shows defenses, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative
that he clearly identified one of the callers as accused-appellant Alfonso and self-serving, deserve no weight in law, and cannot be given evidentiary
Patalin. Anent his failure to mention accused-appellant Mijaques name, he value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
explained on cross-examination that he did not know yet the name of the matters (People vs. Gayon, 269 SCRA 587 [1997]). Positive identification,
person who attacked him with the bolo at the time he executed his sworn where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on
statement (tsn, Dec. 16, 1986, pp. 35, 38-39). It was only later that he the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and
found out that the name of his assailant was Alex Mijaque. As regards Jesus denial (People vs. Javier, 269 SCRA 181 [1997]). Verily, even if the defense
Larang, the fact that he mentioned unknown persons in his report does not of denial is supported by the testimony of friends of the accused, it deserves
affect Reynaldos categorical and positive identification of accused-appellants the barest consideration (People vs. Gamiao, 240 SCRA 254 [1995]). It will
Patalin and Mijaque as the perpetrators of the hacking and robbery incidents be given weight only if it would preclude any doubt that the accused could
at his home. not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at
Anent the rape victims, it was clearly explained that their assailants told the time of commission (People vs. Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314 [1995]; People
them not to report the matter to the police, otherwise, the assailants will vs. De Roxas, 241 SCRA 369 [1995];People vs. Morin, 241 SCRA 709
return and kill them (tsn, Feb. 15, 1990, p. 19). The victims were overcome [1995]; People vs. Rivera, 242 SCRA 26 [1995]; People vs. Dela Iglesia, 241
by fear and shame (ibid., p. 31). Besides, the delay in reporting the multiple SCRA 718 [1995]; People vs. Umali, 242 SCRA 17 [1995]; People vs. Dayson,
rapes was not procrastination as this was only 3 days from the date of the 242 SCRA 124 [1995]; People vs. Espinosa, Jr. 243 SCRA 7 [1995]; People
incident (tsn, June 30, 1988, p. 22), a far shorter period than those vs. Parica, 243 SCRA 557 [1995]; People vs. Escoto, 244 SCRA 87 [1995]).
mentioned in People vs. Gecomo (254 SCRA 82 [1996]) where we held that Accused-appellant Mijaque testified that on August 11, 1984, he was in
a delay of 17 or 35 days, or even 6 months, by a victim of rape in reporting Manduriao, Iloilo. The overland travel time from the town of Manduriao to
the attack on her honor, does not detract from the veracity of her charge. Lambunao is approximately one hour and twenty minutes. Accused-appellant
The defense also notes certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the Patalin testified that he was in Barangay Pandan, which is merely adjacent to
complaining witnesses, as follows: (1) Juliana Carcillar testified earlier that Lambunao. Lastly, accused-appellant Nestor Ras testified that he was in
the only light in the house came from a kerosene lamp placed on a small Antique, a province neighboring Iloilo, which is approximately two hours
table which was extinguished as a result of it being knocked down, thus away therefrom via overland transportation. The defense tried to corroborate
placing the house in darkness, while on the other hand, Perpetua Carcillar, these alibis by presenting witnesses who testified on details which happened
earlier said that although there was no more light in the house coming from ten years prior to the date their testimony was given, and hence of naturally
the lamp, yet she could still see because the light of the moon still doubtful credibility.
illuminated their house, allegedly through the plastic roofing; and (2) the Mutatis Mutandi People vs. Queliza (279 SCRA 145 [1997]), considering
prosecution witnesses could not agree concerning the date they went to San that the places where accused-appellants alleged they were at could be
Dionisio, Iloilo to identify accused-appellant Nestor Ras, as well as the date traversed by motorized vehicles, it was not impossible that accused-
when Ras was arrested. appellants could not have been at the crime scene by 7 oclock or 7:30
Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to o'clock in the evening on August 11, 1984. More importantly and damming
minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of yet is the positive identification of their presence thereat by the victims.
their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony, and do not The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of
impair the credibility of such witnesses where there is consistency in relating nighttime and dwelling in Criminal Case No. 18376 considering that nighttime
the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant facilitated the commission of the crime and the evidence shows that
(Sumalpong vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 764 [1997]). In fact, honest accused-appellants took advantage of the darkness to successfully
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 27

consummate their plans (People vs. Apduhan, Jr., 24 SCRA 798 Conspiracy exists when two or more persons came to an agreement
[1968]). Dwelling is clear from the abuse of confidence which the victims concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it ( People vs.
reposed in the offenders by opening the door to them, as well as the Abarri, 242 SCRA 39 [1995]). It cannot be merely presumed. Similar to the
violation of the sanctity of privacy in the victims homes. He who goes to physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be
anothers house to slander him, hurt him, or do him wrong, is more guilty proven beyond reasonable doubt.
than he who offends him elsewhere (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code In the case at bar, although there was no proof of previous actual
Criminal Law, Vol. I, 1993 ed., citing the dissenting opinion of Justice agreement among accused-appellants adduced at the trial
Villareal in People vs. Ambis, 68 Phil. 635 [1939] and Viada, 5th ed., Vol. II, ...direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shown that
pp. 323-324). We further affirm the trial courts finding on the presence of the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into
the aggravating circumstance of band considering that Reynaldo Aliman and pursue a common design. The existence of the assent of minds which is
testified that accused-appellants Patalin and two other companions (one of involved in a conspiracy maybe, and from the secrecy of the crime, usually
whom was later identified as accused-appellant Mijaque) entered his home must be, inferred by the court from proof of facts and circumstances which,
(tsn, p. 7, Dec. 16, 1986). This was corroborated by Josephine Belisario who taken together, apparently indicate that they are merely parts of some
even saw four (4) persons enter their gate, one of whom was accused- complete whole. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts
appellant Patalin (tsn, p. 10, June 30, 1988). These same aggravating towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part
circumstances likewise attended the commission of the crime of robbery with so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected
multiple rape in Criminal Case No. 18305 and this was clearly testified to by and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
the victims thereof who stated that five persons, including accused-appellant concurrence of sentiment, then a conspiracy maybe inferred though no
Patalin, armed with a bolo, a knife, and a long gun, entered their dwelling actual meeting among them to concert means is proved (People vs.
that unfortunate night (tsn, June 29, 1989, p. 10; February 15, 1990, p. 5). Carbonel, 48 Phil. 868; See also People vs. Viray, 147 SCRA 146; People vs.
With respect to accused-appellants Patalin and Mijaques defense that Balignasay, G.R. No. 76743, May 22, 1992; People vs. Galit, 230 SCRA
they were arrested without warrants, suffice it to say that any objection, 486)...
defect, or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused (People vs. Miranday, 242 SCRA 620 [1995]).
enters his plea (Padilla vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402 [1997]). As correctly pointed Verily, the participation of each of the accused-appellants was exhibited
out in the Peoples consolidated brief, the record shows no objection was by the straightforward testimony of the victims themselves.
ever interposed prior to arraignment and trial (p. 324, Rollo). This brings us to the crucial issue raised by accused-appellants on the
It is indubitable that there was conspiracy in the commission of the death penalty. At the time the crimes charged were committed in 1984,
crimes in both Criminal Cases No. 18376 and 18305. In the first criminal robbery with rape was punishable by death (Art. 294, Revised Penal
case, the evidence clearly shows that accused-appellants Patalin and Code). However, by virtue of the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
Mijaque, together with unidentified companions, committed the crime specifically Paragraph (1), Section 19 of Article III thereof, the death penalty
charged. Said culprits shared the common criminal objective of robbing the was abolished. Hence, the argument that it could not be imposed upon
victims and inflicting wounds upon Reynaldo Aliman on the occasion of the accused-appellants. Said provision reads as follows:
robbery. In the second case, all three accused-appellants (together with Sec. 19 (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
unidentified companions), who were positively identified by the victims inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
themselves, undoubtedly had the common criminal design of robbing the unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
household of Jesusa Carcillar, and of committing multiple rape on the hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced
occasion of the robbery. Accused-appellant Mijaque dragged Josephine to reclusion perpetua.
Belisario to her aunts house and the other culprits followed suit. Accused- The constitutional abolition of the death penalty immediately took effect
appellant Patalin boxed Jesusa Carcillar and announced that they were upon the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. However, said provision left
staging a hold-up. After robbing the household, they proceeded in ravishing the matter open for Congress to revive capital punishment at its discretion,
the four young female victims, Rogelia, Juliana, Josephine, and Perpetua, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Simply stated, it did not
one after the other, thus truly exhibiting their concerted acts. prevent the legislature from reimposing the death penalty at some future
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 28

time (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A lacking which the act must be rejected ( Cruz, Phil. Political Law, 1996 ed., p.
Commentary, 1996 ed., pp. 507-508). 51). The nobility of our intention is insufficient.
Congress eventually restored the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act There is no doubt that the abolition of the death penalty in 1987
No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Law which took effect on January 1, 1994. retroactively affected and benefited accused-appellants. Article 22 of the
Accused-appellants are of the position that since the Constitutions Revised Penal Code provides that [p]enal laws shall have a retroactive effect
abolition of the death penalty had retroactive effect, being beneficial to the insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual
accused, the restoration or imposition of the death penalty on January 1, criminal . . . although at the time of the publication of such laws a final
1994 would no longer cover them notwithstanding the fact that the decision sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
was rendered by the trial court on June 14, 1995, when the Death Penalty A statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense
Law had already taken effect. committed against the state (Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. I, 1987
Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall be ed., p. 5). The above-cited provision of the Constitution is penal in character
punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. At since it deals with the penalty to be imposed for capital crimes. This penal
the time of the commission of the crime in 1984, as held by the trial court, provision may be given retroactive effect during three possible stages of a
robbery with rape, if committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two criminal prosecution: (a) when the crime has been committed and the
or more persons, was punishable by reclusion perpetua to death (Article prosecution began; (b) when sentence has been passed but the service has
294[2], Revised Penal Code [as amended by Presidential Decree No. 767]). not begun; and (c) when the sentence is being carried out
True, in 1987, the Constitution abolished the death penalty subject to (Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review, 1988 ed., p. 167,
Congress future restoration thereof for compelling reasons involving heinous citing Escalante vs. Santos, 56 Phil 483 [1932]).
crimes. At the time of such ratification, the instant case was still at its trial In the light of the discussion above, there is no question that the
stage. No penalty had as yet then been imposed. Considering that the abolition of the death penalty benefits herein accused-appellants. Perforce,
provision provides that [a]ny death penalty already imposed shall be reduced the subsequent reimposition of the death penalty will not affect them. The
to reclusion perpetua, it is clear that the framers intended said provision to framers of the Constitution themselves state that the law to be passed by
have a retroactive effect on cases pending without any penalty of death Congress reimposing the death penalty (Republic Act 7659) can only have
having been imposed yet. Consequently, upon ratification of the 1987 prospective application (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution the Republic of the
Constitution, any death penalty already imposed is automatically without Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 508, citing I RECORD, p.
need for any executive action commuted (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of 748; Bernas, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, 1995 ed., p. 227,
the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 508). citing I Record, p. 747-748).
The instant case poses the following issue: When the death penalty was There is no question that a person has no vested right in any rule of law
abolished in 1987 and was retroactively applied to herein accused-appellants, which entitles him to insists that it shall remain unchanged for his benefit,
did they gain a vested right thereto so that any future act restoring the nor has he a vested right in the continued existence of a statute which
death penalty would no longer cover them? An affirmative answer would free precludes its change or repeal, nor in any omission to legislate on a
accused-appellants from the fatal clutches of the death penalty. particular matter. However, a subsequent statute cannot be so applied
Ours is a government of laws and not of men. The idea that an retroactively as to impair a right that accrued under the old law
individual may be compelled to hold his life (or lose it), or the means of (Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1986 ed., p. 264, citing Benguet
living, at the mere will of another, is intolerable in any country where Consolidated Mining Co. vs. Pineda, 98 Phil 711 [1956]; Laurel vs. Misa, 76
freedom prevails (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778 [1919]). Before us is Phil 372 [1946]). Courts have thus given statutes strict construction to
a heinous crime indeed where People were harmed, robbed, ravished, and prevent their retroactive operation in order that the statutes would not
abused in the defaced sanctity of their own homes. It is but human nature to impair or interfere with vested or existing rights. Clearly, accused-appellants
feel some measure of loathing, disgust, and hatred for the offenders right to be benefited by the abolition of the death penalty accrued or
considering the inhuman aspect of the crime committed. However, the attached by virtue of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. This benefit
ascendancy of the law is axiomatic in our type of government. Every official cannot be taken away from them.
act must be based on and must conform to the authority of a valid law,
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 29

Since the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have Because of the findings of conspiracy, accused-appellants Patalin and
already become vested (Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 515 Mijaque are jointly and severally liable for the amounts awarded in Criminal
[1992]), the rule in statutory construction is that all statutes are to be Case No. 18376; whereas all three accused-appellants are solidarily liable for
construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and the amounts awarded in Criminal Case No. 18305.
intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of accused-appellants justified by
declared or is necessarily implied from the language used ( Balatbat vs. Court the evidence on record, the Court hereby AFFIRMS said judgment, with the
of Appeals, 205 SCRA 419 [1992]). following modifications:
By analogy, we apply the rule in labor law which provides that benefits (a) In Criminal Case No. 18376, for purposes of the Indeterminate
accruing to workmen under the old law cannot be taken away from them by Sentence Law, considering that the aggravating circumstances of band,
a succeeding law. In the case at bar, there is greater reason to apply this nighttime, and dwelling attended the commission of the crime, accused-
principle since the very taking of life is involved and is at issue. appellants Patalin and Mijaque are hereby sentenced to an indeterminate
As regards accused-appellants civil liability, the trial court, in Criminal penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to
Case No. 18376, correctly awarded P700.00 to Corazon Aliman representing fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion
the total value of the cash and personal property forcibly taken, and temporal, as maximum;
P8,000.00 to Reynaldo Aliman representing expenses incurred for medication (b) Accused-appellants Patalin and Mijaque are jointly and severally held
and hospitalization. However, in Criminal Case No. 18305, the trial court liable for the amounts awarded by the trial court in said criminal case,
failed to order indemnification for the multiple rapes. Thus, in line with the particularly, the amount of P700.00 representing the total value of the cash
pronouncement in People vs. Victor (G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998) wherein and articles taken from Corazon Aliman, and P8,000.00 representing the
we said: expenses incurred by Reynaldo Aliman for medication and hospitalization;
One other point of concern has to be addressed. Indictments for rape (c) In Criminal Case No. 18305, the penalty imposed is reduced
continue unabated and the legislative response has been in the form of to reclusion perpetua; and
higher penalties. The Court believes that, on like considerations, the (d) Aside from the amount of P6,500.00 already awarded by the trial
jurisprudential path on the civil aspect should follow the same court to the Carcillar family representing the value of the cash and articles
direction. Hence, starting with the case at bar, if the crime of rape is taken, the victims in Criminal Case No. 18305 are hereby awarded an
committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which additional P75,000 as indemnity for each count of rape, P50,000.00 for each
the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity count of rape as moral damages, and P10,000 for each count of rape as
for the victim shall be in the increased amount of not less than exemplary damages, for which amounts all three accused-appellants are
P75,000.00. this is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of jointly and severally liable.
the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression SO ORDERED.
of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against Romero, Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
chastity. Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago,
accused-appellants should be made to pay P375,000.00 as indemnification JJ., concur.
for five counts of rape (considering that Juliana Carcillar was twice raped by Davide, Jr., C.J., on leave.
accused-appellant Mijaque) in addition to the sum of P6,500.00 representing
the value of the cash and articles that were taken from the victims. In line
with the recent ruling in People vs. Prades (G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998),
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, or a *
On January 21, 1985, an information for robbery with multiple rape was
total of P250,000.00 is likewise awarded. Lastly, so that the instant case may filed against Alfonso Patalin and was docketed as Criminal Case No.
serve as an object lesson to the public, exemplary damages in the amount of 18305. Said criminal case was consolidated with Criminal Case No. 18376
P10,000 per count of rape is further awarded ( People vs. Burce, 269 SCRA based on an Information for robbery with physical injuries against the same
293 [1997]). accused and was heard by Branch 25, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City (pp. 1-
2, 53-55, II Record).
 C r i m i n a l L a w S e p t e m b e r 1 7 P a g e | 30

On July 1, 1985, a motion for consolidation was filed by private prosecutor

Rodolfo Valera Cabado manifesting that another Information was filed
against Nestor Ras for robbery in band with multiple rape, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 18835, which was founded on the same facts presented in
the first two criminal cases. Eventually, the three cases were
consolidated. Later, Alex Mijaque was identified and apprehended as an
additional conspirator in the aforesaid Criminal Cases No. 18305 and
18835. Subsequently, a motion to admit Amended Information and to
dismiss Criminal Case No. 18835 was filed by the prosecution. As a result,
two cases were jointly tried by the lower court, namely, Criminal Case No.
18305 entitled The People of the Phils. v. Alfonso Patalin, Alias Alpoc, Nestor
Ras, and Alex Mijaque, Alias Aprik for Robbery in band with rape, and
Criminal Case No. 18376 entitled The People of the Phils. v. Alfonso Patalin,
Jr. Alias Alpoc', and Alex Mijaque, Alias Aprik for robbery with physical
injuries (pp. 74-76, 86, 88-93, II Record).