10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

G.R. No. 227878. August 9, 2017. *

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERALDO
SANTILLAN y VILLANUEVA and EUGENE BORROMEO y
NATIVIDAD, accused-appellants.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence; Dying Declaration; A

dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its
hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following
requisites concur, namely: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time the
declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending
death; (c) the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is
offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the
declarant is a victim.—A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible
as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when
the following requisites concur, namely: (a) the declaration must concern
the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the
time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an
impending death; (c) the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) the
declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide,
in which the declarant is a victim.

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 

72

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

Same; Same; Same; Part of Res Gestae; A declaration or an utterance

is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an
exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the
statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise;
and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.—Ernesto’s statement may also be
considered part of the res gestae. A declaration or an utterance is deemed as
part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal
act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements
must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances. Ernesto’s statement referred to a startling occurrence, that is,
him being stabbed by Dodong, Eugene, Ramil, and a certain “Palaka.” At
the time he relayed his statement to Julie Ann, he was wounded and blood
oozed from his chest. Given his condition, it is clear that he had no time to
contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his utterance was made
in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely,
such statement is relevant because it identified the authors of the crime.
Criminal Law; Aggravating Circumstances; Abuse of Superior
Strength; It is settled that when the attack was made on the victim
alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength.—As pointed out in the
appellant’s brief, only the fact that there were two (2) persons chasing
Ernesto, Ramil and Geraldo, can be ascertained from Michael’s testimony.
In line with Beduya, the sole fact that there were two (2) persons who
attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed
with abuse of superior strength. Moreover, as can be gleaned from
Michael’s testimony, the respective attacks thrown by Ramil and Geraldo
occurred alternately, one after the other. It is settled that when the attack was
made on the victim alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength.
Same; Homicide; Penalties; The crime of homicide is punishable by
reclusion temporal.—Having established Geraldo and Eugene’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of homicide, they must suffer the
appropriate penalty imposed by law. The crime of homicide is punishable by
reclusion temporal. Considering that there are

 
 

73

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 73

People vs. Santillan
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be fixed

in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they
should be sentenced to an indeterminate term, the minimum of which is
within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prisión mayor, and
the maximum of which is that properly imposable under the RPC, i.e.,
reclusion temporal in its medium period.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

MENDOZA, J.:
 
This is an appeal from the May 8, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05026, which affirmed the
April 6, 2011 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 128,
Caloocan City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. C-70393, finding
accused-appellants Geraldo Santillan y Villanueva (Geraldo) and
Eugene Borromeo (Eugene) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder.
 
The Antecedents
 
In an Information, dated March 30, 2004, Geraldo and four (4)
John Does were charged with the crime of murder. The Information
reads:

_______________

1  Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices

Noel G. Tijam (now member of this Court) and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes,
concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-20.
2  Penned by Presiding Judge Eleanor R. Kwong; CA Rollo, pp. 82-92.

 
 

74

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

That on or about the 28th day of March 2004 in Caloocan City, Metro-
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, conspiring together and mutually aiding with one another, without
any justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery, evident

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack and stab with a bladed weapon one
ERNESTO GARCIA y MARIANG, hitting the latter on the different parts
of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries, which
caused his instantaneous death.
Contrary to Law.3

 
On April 28, 2004, Geraldo was arraigned where he pleaded “not
guilty.” Upon motion by the Public Prosecutor, an Amended
Information was admitted by the RTC on June 24, 2004. The
Amended Information named the four (4) John Does as Eugene,
Ramil Santillan y Villanueva (Ramil), Julious Esmeña (Julious), and
Andres Cartnueva (Andres).
On January 24, 2007, Eugene was arraigned and he pleaded “not
guilty” to the crime charged. Ramil, Julious and Andres, however,
remained at-large.
The prosecution presented Julie Ann Garcia (Julie Ann), Michael
Garcia (Michael), Police Chief Inspector Felimon Porciuncula, Jr.
(Dr. Porciuncula, Jr.), PO1 Joselito Bagting, and Mary Ann Pariñas
as its witnesses. On the other hand, the defense consisted of the
testimonies of Clarita Amen (Clarita), Teresita Arias (Teresita),
Geraldo and Eugene.
 
Version of the Prosecution
 
On March 23, 2004, at about 7:30 o’clock in the evening, Andres
invited the victim Ernesto Garcia (Ernesto), who was

_______________

3  Id., at p. 82.

 
 
75

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 75

People vs. Santillan

then watching television in his living room, to go out. Ernesto

agreed and they went to the end portion of an alley.
Minutes later, Michael, Ernesto’s son, was tending their store
when he saw his father running towards their gate while being
chased by Ramil and Geraldo, also known in their place as Dodong
Santillan.4 Thereupon, Ramil stabbed Ernesto at the back. Geraldo,
who was also armed, tried to stab Ernesto but missed.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

Ernesto ran towards their gate and embraced Michael. Michael

then called out his sister, Julie Ann, who came to help her father
while Michael sought assistance from their uncle, Domingo
Trinidad. Julie Ann asked Ernesto who his assailants were. Ernesto
answered Dodong, Eugene, Ramil, and a certain “Palaka.” Ernesto
vomited blood and fell to the ground. Michael returned onboard a
tricycle and they tried to bring Ernesto to the hospital, but their
father was already dead.
 
Version of the Defense
 
Geraldo testified that on March 28, 2004, at about 7:45 o’clock in
the evening, he was already asleep in their house but was awakened
when he felt something cold was pointed at his side. He was
surprised to see that it was a gun and policemen were inside his
house. The policemen immediately handcuffed him and informed
him that he was responsible for Ernesto’s death.
Geraldo further attested that Ernesto filed a complaint against
him for allegedly throwing stones at his (Ernesto’s) house. The
barangay investigation, however, showed that he was not
responsible for the complained act. He and Ernesto shook hands and
the latter’s children even asked for an apology. On March 14, 2004,
Ernesto hacked him on the head. He filed a case for frustrated
murder before the police precinct,

_______________

4  Id., at p. 84.

 
 

76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

but the case did not reach the prosecutor’s office because Ernesto
died.5 Also, sometime in November 2003, he and his wife Lorna
Santillan filed a complaint against Ernesto before the barangay.6 He
never thought of retaliating as they were advised to file a case
against Ernesto.
Teresita, sister of Julious, corroborated the testimony of Geraldo.
She testified that on March 28, 2004, between 6:00 to 6:30 o’clock
in the evening, she was at Geraldo’s house and she saw him sleeping
because the house had no door and there was illumination from a
candle; that while on her way home from the market, she noticed a
commotion; that she heard that Ernesto was stabbed; that she

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

hurriedly went to Geraldo’s house to fetch her son and saw that
Geraldo was still sleeping; that she was cooking at about 8:00 to
8:30 o’clock in the evening when policemen suddenly arrived; and
that she saw from their window that Geraldo, who had just
awakened, was being arrested.
For his part, Eugene deposed that on March 28, 2004 at about
7:45 o’clock in the evening, he was in Camarin, Zapote, Caloocan
City. He arrived in the said place at about 4:30 o’clock in the
afternoon because his mother instructed him to collect payment from
her kumadre. He ate there and was able to collect the payment. He
left Zapote at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening but did not go home
and instead played video carrera for more than thirty 30 minutes.
Afterwards, he went home and was surprised to see a lot of people in
their place. He then learned of Ernesto’s death. He alleged that he
never had a misunderstanding with Ernesto; and that he was present
during the time that Ernesto attacked Geraldo with a bolo. On
November 23, 2005, he discovered that a case for murder was filed
against him when he secured a clearance

_______________

5  Id., at p. 89.
6  Id.

 
 

77

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 77

People vs. Santillan

from the OCC-MeTC.7 He stated that he never left their house in

Bagong Silang; and that he did not go into hiding.
 
The RTC’s Ruling
 
In its April 6, 2011 decision, the RTC found Geraldo and Eugene
guilty beyond reasonable of the crime of murder and sentenced them
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all the accessory
penalties attached thereto.
The RTC treated the ante mortem statement of Ernesto as a dying
declaration. It found that Ernesto’s declaration, which was relayed to
Julie Ann, concerned the circumstances surrounding his death; that it
was offered in a criminal case in which he was the victim; and that it
was made under the consciousness of impending death, taking into
consideration the gravity of his wounds and the immediacy by which

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

death took place. It also admitted Ernesto’s declaration as part of the

res gestae.
The trial court was convinced that the dying declaration, coupled
with the testimony of Michael, had established beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of both Geraldo and Eugene. It opined that the
defenses proffered centered on alibi, an inherently weak defense that
is reduced to self-serving evidence when unsubstantiated and is
undeserving of weight in law.
Moreover, the RTC ruled that the testimonies of defense
witnesses Clarita and Teresita did not provide corroboration because
both witnesses were not present during the stabbing incident. It
observed that Teresita was at the market and saw Geraldo before and
after the stabbing incident but not during its occurrence. In the same
manner, the RTC noted that while Clarita saw Geraldo asleep before
and after the stabbing incident, she nevertheless did not see him at
the time of its

_______________

7  Id., at p. 90.

 
 

78

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

commission for she was inside the house of Geraldo’s mother having
a massage session.
Finally, the RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength. In so ruling, it stressed that Ernesto was
unarmed and was trying to flee from his attackers. The RTC took
into account the fact that there were four assailants, two of whom
were seen chasing Ernesto with a bolo on hand. Hence, it concluded
that the crime committed was murder, qualified by abuse of superior
strength. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Geraldo Santillan and Eugene

Borromeo Guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Murder, the court hereby
sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all the
accessory penalties attached thereto. Accused Geraldo Santillan and Eugene
Borromeo are likewise directed to pay jointly and severally the heirs of
Ernesto Garcia as follows:
1) Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, as civil indemnity;
2) Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, as moral damages;
3) Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as, exemplary damages;
and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

4) Twenty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Five (P27,845.00)

Pesos, as actual damages.
SO ORDERED.8

 
Aggrieved, the accused-appellants elevated an appeal before the
CA.

_______________

8  Id., at p. 92.

 
 

79

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 79

People vs. Santillan

The CA’s Ruling

 
In its May 8, 2015 decision, the CA affirmed with modification
the conviction of Geraldo and Eugene. It held that all the requisites
for the admissibility of a dying declaration were present in this case.
In the same manner, the CA ruled that Ernesto’s declaration could
also be admitted as part of the res gestae because when Ernesto gave
the identities of those who stabbed him to Julie Ann, he was
referring to a startling occurrence. It added that Ernesto was
wounded and blood was oozing from his chest, thus, he had no time
to contrive the identification of his assailants. The CA opined that
Ernesto’s utterance that Dodong, Eugene, Ramil, and a certain
“Palaka” stabbed him was spontaneously made and only in reaction
to the startling occurrence.
The appellate court explained that the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength must be appreciated because the assailants
enjoyed superiority in number and were armed with weapons, while
Ernesto had no means with which to defend himself. It declared that
the medicolegal report supported the inequality of forces between
the victim and the assailants in terms of number and weapons. The
CA noted Dr. Porciuncula, Jr.’s testimony that Ernesto sustained
multiple incise wounds on different parts of his body; that the
weapon used was a single bladed sharp instrument and it was
possible that more than one was used; and that it was likely that
there could have been more than one assailant that inflicted the stab
wounds.9 The CA disposed of the appeal in this wise:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision of the Regional

Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 128 in Criminal Case No. C-70393,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

finding accused-appellants Geraldo Santillan y Villanueva and Eugene

Borromeo y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

_______________

9  Rollo, p. 11.

 
 

80

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

the crime of murder and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-
appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Ernesto
Garcia the amounts of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil
indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages,
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages and Twenty-
Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Five Pesos (P27,845.00) as actual
damages. Accused-appellants shall also pay interest on all these damages
assessed at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality
of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.10

 
Hence, this appeal.
 
Issues

I.
 
WHETHER IT WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT GERALDO AND EUGENE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DEATH OF ERNESTO.
 
II.
 
WHETHER ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH ATTENDED THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.

 
In a Resolution,11 dated January 16, 2017, the Court required the
parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs
simultaneously, if they so desired. In their Manifestation (in lieu of
Supplemental Brief),12 dated March 3, 2017, accused-appellants
manifested that they were adopting the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

_______________

10  Id., at pp. 18-19.

11  Id., at pp. 26-27.
12  Id., at pp. 28-30.

 
 

81

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 81

People vs. Santillan

Appellant’s Brief filed before the CA as their supplemental brief, for

the same had adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to their
defense. In its Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief),13 dated
March 15, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) stated
that all matters and issues raised by the accused-appellants had
already been adequately discussed in its Brief before the CA and
manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief.
In their appellant’s brief, accused-appellants sought a reversal of
their conviction contending that Ernesto’s statement, as relayed to
Julie Ann, was inadmissible as a dying declaration or part of res
gestae. They posited that Ernesto was incompetent to testify had he
survived. Accused-appellants advanced the proposition that because
the stabbing incident happened at night, darkness made it
improbable for Ernesto to identify his assailants. Considering that no
moral certainty could be had as to their participation, their
accountability for Ernesto’s death was reduced to a mere possibility
which was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, accused-appellants argued that the prosecution failed to
prove that they took advantage of their physical strength to ensure
commission of the crime for even if it was true that Michael saw
Ramil and Geraldo chasing Ernesto, such circumstance did not
prove that they took advantage of their physical strength by
simultaneously attacking the victim.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The appeal is partly meritorious.
 
Ernesto’s dying declara-
tion stands; likewise, his
statementis admissible
as part of the res gestae

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

13  Id., at pp. 33-35.

 
 

82

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence

due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the
following requisites concur, namely: (a) the declaration must
concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death; (b) at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a
consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant is competent
as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.14
All of the above requisites are present in this case. The Court
quotes with approval the CA’s disquisition on the matter:

Ernesto communicated his ante-mortem statement to Julie Ann, identifying

accused-appellants and the other two accused as the persons who stabbed
him. At the time of his statement, Ernesto was conscious of his impending
death, having sustained multiple incise and stab wounds, one of which being
fatal, piercing deeply into the middle lobe of his right lung, trachea and
esophagus. Ernesto even vomited blood, collapsed, and eventually died.
x x x
Ernesto would have been competent to testify on the subject of the
declaration had he survived. Lastly, the dying declaration was offered in this
criminal prosecution for murder in which Ernesto was the victim.15

 
The postulate that darkness of the night prevented Ernesto from
identifying his assailants must be rejected for being entirely
conjectural. Basic is the rule that mere allegation and speculation is
not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.16

_______________

14  People v. Salafranca, 682 Phil. 470, 481-482; 666 SCRA 501, 512 (2012).
15  Rollo, pp. 13-14.
16  Office of the Ombudsman v. De Villa, G.R. No. 208341, June 17, 2015, 759
SCRA 288, 304.

 
 

83

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 83

People vs. Santillan

To be sure, Geraldo and Eugene’s proposition crumbles in light

of the testimony of Dr. Porciuncula, Jr., whose competence as an
expert witness was admitted by the defense. Dr. Porciuncula, Jr.
testified that with respect to the injuries in front, the assailant could
have been in the front right side of the victim if the assailant was
right-handed; whereas, if the assailant was left-handed, then he was
facing the victim in front.17 He likewise stated that the incise
wounds on the hands could be considered as defense wounds and it
was possible that the victim was able to fight back his assailant.18
The presence of defense wounds is a positive indication of
resistance on the part of Ernesto. Gauging from the situs of the
defense wounds, it is discernible that the victim utilized his hands to
ward off the slew of attacks from his assailants. Logically, the
defense wounds resulted from attacks that were hurled within
Ernesto’s line of sight, for the simple reason that his hands could
only parry those attacks coming from the direction he was facing.
This leads to the unmistakable conclusion that at one point in time,
Ernesto came face to face with his assailants. Contrary to Geraldo
and Eugene’s assertion, the evidence on record reveals that Ernesto
was in a position to glance upon and recognize the face of his
aggressors. Moreover, such conclusion is buttressed by the
uncontroverted findings that Ernesto sustained frontal injuries; and
that the attacker could have been in front or facing the victim.
Ernesto’s statement may also be considered part of the res gestae.
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and
thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when
the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res
gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made before
the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements
must concern the

_______________

17  CA Rollo, p. 86.

18  Id.

 
 

84

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

occurrence in question and its immediately attending

circumstances.19
Ernesto’s statement referred to a startling occurrence, that is, him
being stabbed by Dodong, Eugene, Ramil, and a certain “Palaka.” At
the time he relayed his statement to Julie Ann, he was wounded and
blood oozed from his chest. Given his condition, it is clear that he
had no time to contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his
utterance was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the
startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is relevant because it
identified the authors of the crime.20
 
The Qualifying Circum-
stance of Abuse of Superior
Strength was improperly
appreciated; Geraldo and
Eugene could only be con-
victed of the crime of homi-
cide
 
Although the Court entertains no doubt that Geraldo and Eugene
are responsible for Ernesto’s death, the lower tribunals erred when it
appreciated abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing to
murder. The courts a quo commonly concluded that the assailants’
number and weapons gave them significant advantage in ensuring
the death of Ernesto. Such reasoning, however, is incorrect and fails
to muster the standards set by jurisprudence on the proper
appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength.
In People v. Beduya (Beduya)21 the Court explained the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength as follows:

_______________

19  Supra note 14 at pp. 482-483; p. 513.

20  People v. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 318, 329.
21  641 Phil. 399; 627 SCRA 275 (2010).

 
 

85

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 85

People vs. Santillan

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious

inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a
situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the

crime. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does
not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior
strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and
the victim. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought
the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To
take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force
out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.22

 
As pointed out in the appellant’s brief, only the fact that there
were two (2) persons chasing Ernesto, Ramil and Geraldo, can be
ascertained from Michael’s testimony. In line with Beduya, the sole
fact that there were two (2) persons who attacked the victim does not
per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior
strength. Moreover, as can be gleaned from Michael’s testimony, the
respective attacks thrown by Ramil and Geraldo occurred
alternately, one after the other. It is settled that when the attack was
made on the victim alternately, there is no abuse of superior
strength.23 Besides, the Court notes that Eugene was not even a
participant in the chase Michael witnessed.
Neither will Ernesto’s dying declaration suffice to establish abuse
of superior strength. The ante mortem statement, as relayed to Julie
Ann, revolved solely on the identification of the assailants Dodong,
Eugene, Ramil, and a certain “Palaka.” There was no account on
how the assault transpired or a narration to the effect that the
aggressors cooperated in

_______________

22  Id.
23  People v. Baltar, Jr., 401 Phil. 1, 16; 347 SCRA 579, 590 (2000).

 
 
86

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Santillan

such a way as to secure advantage of their combined strength to

perpetrate the crime with impunity.24 Aside from naming his
assailants, Ernesto’s ante mortem statement is bereft of any indicia
that will convince the Court that the perpetrators espoused a
deliberate design to utilize the advantage of number and weapons.
Thus, the dearth in the prosecution’s evidence impels a downgrading
of the nature of the offense committed from murder to homicide.
 
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

Proper penalty and

award of damages
 
Having established Geraldo and Eugene’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of homicide, they must suffer the
appropriate penalty imposed by law. The crime of homicide is
punishable by reclusion temporal. Considering that there are no
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be fixed
in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
they should be sentenced to an indeterminate term, the minimum of
which is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e.,
prisión mayor, and the maximum of which is that properly
imposable under the RPC, i.e., reclusion temporal in its medium
period.25
In line with prevailing jurisprudence,26 the Court reduces the
awards of civil indemnity to P50,000.00. Likewise, the award of
moral damages is reduced to P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the April 6, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 128, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case No. C-70393, is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Court finds accused-
appellants Geraldo Santillan y Villanueva and

_______________

24  People v. Baluyot, 252 Phil. 591, 598; 170 SCRA 569, 576 (1989).
25  People v. Beduya, supra note 21 at pp. 413-414; p. 288.
26  People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.

 
 

87

VOL. 837, AUGUST 9, 2017 87

People vs. Santillan

Eugene Borromeo y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime of Homicide and hereby sentences them to an indeterminate
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to pay the heirs of Ernesto
Garcia the amounts of P27,845.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity; and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully
paid.
SO ORDERED.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Leonen and Martires, JJ.,

concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Res Gestae refers to those exclamations and statements

made by either the participants, the victim or spectator to a crime
immediately before, during or immediately after the commission of
the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were
made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by excitement
of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. (People vs. Esoy, 617
SCRA 552 [2010])
To appreciate the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength, what is to be considered is whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the
offense, e.g., that excessive force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the victim was used. (People vs. Fernandez, 804
SCRA 464 [2016])
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf18ba40b9f81dc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16