SECOND DIVISION
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
122103
November 4, 2003
-versus-
WILFREDO
PABILLO,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA,
J.:
Accused-appellant
Wilfredo Pabillo together with his father and co-accused Alfredo
Pabillo
were charged with the crime of simple homicide before Branch IX of the
Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, 8th Judicial Region, under an
Information[1]
dated April 22, 1987. Before the accused could be arraigned, the
prosecution
amended the Information upgrading the crime of homicide to MURDER by
alleging
treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The accusatory portion of the
Amended
Information[2]
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That
on or
about the 30th day of November, 1986 in the Municipality of Alangalang,
Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually helping each other, with intent to kill and with treachery,
did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault,
stab and wound one Francisco Ipil with the use of long bolos which the
accused had provided themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and
inflicting
mortal wounds on the different parts of the body of the said Francisco
Ipil which caused his death thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.
On October 10, 1988,
the
two accused pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge.[3]
Accused Alfredo (hereafter, Alfredo) however died during the pendency
of
the case or before any judgment could be rendered by the lower court;[4]
thus, only appellant Wilfredo Pabillo (hereafter, Wilfredo) elevated
the
judgment to this Court.
The prosecution's
version
of how the killing occurred differs from that of the appellant's.
Hereunder
is the People's version.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 8:00
o'clock
in the evening of November 30, 1986, Francisco Dador (hereafter, Dador)
was at the house of his cousin Eduardo Taborada at Sitio Guintadcan,
Brgy.
Salvacion, Alangalang, Leyte, on the occasion of the 40th day prayers
for
the latter's deceased wife.[5]
While he was waiting for supper to be served, the deceased Francisco
Ipil
(hereafter, Ipil) arrived. Dador invited him in.[6]
Thereafter, the Pabillo father and son arrived. Both men were armed
with
unsheathed bolos.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Baludo,[8]
please come out because I have an important matter to discuss with
you,"
Alfredo called out.[9]
Ipil "slowly" went out. As soon as Ipil neared the duo who were then
standing
side by side, Wilfredo pushed Ipil forward with his left hand.[10]
Ipil "struggled" and stumbled forward. Suddenly, Wilfredo hacked him on
the head with the long bolo he held with his right hand. When Ipil
started
to fall down, he was hacked on the left arm, this time by Alfredo. Ipil
started to run but Wilfredo struck again, hitting Ipil's back. Ipil
managed
to run towards the back of Eduardo's house, and subsequently fell into
the creek.[11]
Alfredo was heard to have uttered, "Never mind him because he is going
to die."[12]
Subsequently, the father and son tandem fled the scene towards the
ricefield.[13]
All of these Dador, the prosecution's main witness, saw with the aid of
the light coming from the house and the flashlight carried by the
accused.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When everything
quieted
down, Dador went to the creek to look for Ipil. He found him lying on
his
back. He pulled Ipil from the creek and put him on dry ground.
Thereafter,
he went to see Constancia Ipil, the victim's mother, to inform her of
the
incident. Constancia then requested her other son, Samuel, to go with
Dador.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ipil was lying face
up and was still breathing when Samuel reached him. He asked Ipil who
hacked
him and the latter answered, "Sammy, I was hacked by Wilfredo Pabillo
and
Alfredo Pabillo and bring me to the hospital because I might die."[16]
Samuel and Dador put Ipil on a sledge and they proceeded to bring him
to
the hospital. Unfortunately, Ipil expired before reaching the National
Highway.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Post Mortem
Examination
Report[18]
prepared by Dr. Edilberto Trinidad showed that Ipil died of hemorrhage
due to the following hacking injuries:
1.
Hacking
wound, 6 inches long, 2 inches wide and 3 inches deep located on the
left
elbow cutting muscles, blood vessels and the bone.
2. Hacking wound,
5
inches long, 1 inch wide and 3 inches deep located on the head, right
frontal
region cutting muscles, blood vessels, skull and the brain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Wound,
1½
inches long, ½ inch wide and ¼ inch deep located at the
left
scapular region cutting muscles and blood vessels.
On the other hand, the
defense weaved a different tale.
Testifying on his
own
behalf, Wilfredo made this narration: At approximately 8:00 o'clock in
the evening of November 30, 1986, Wilfredo, together with one Rodrigo
Caones,
was visiting Dadoy Aporada's daughter, Belinda Aporada at their house
situated
at Sitio Guintadcan, Barangay Salvacion, Alangalang, Leyte.[19]
Alfredo was also in the same house attending the 40th day prayer for
the
deceased wife of Dadoy Aporada. Alfredo was having a drinking spree
with
Dadoy Aporada, Ipil who was Alfredo's nephew by affinity, and some
other
men.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Wilfredo heard his
father
and Ipil arguing so he went downstairs.[21]
He did not know how the argument started or what they were arguing
about.[22]
He proceeded to pacify his father and convinced him to come with him.
Ipil,
together with Rogelio Brizo and Eleazar Sabela, left ahead of them.[23]
While they were
walking
away from the house, Ipil came back and challenged his father to a
fight.[24]
Wilfredo tried to calm them down but he failed. He ran to the
neighboring
house to ask for help but the occupants were also afraid to intercede
so
he came back alone.[25]
On his way, he met his father who admitted having inflicted wounds upon
Ipi1.[26]
They also met Dador, who inquired from Wilfredo what had happened. He
explained
that his father and Ipil had a fight. Dador left them and proceeded to
Dadoy's house.[27]
His father surrendered to the authorities the following day.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clara Biso also
testified
for the defense. She narrated that in the evening of November 30, 1986,
she was at the house of Dadoy Tampurada attending a rosary prayer. Also
present were Ipil, Alfredo and Wilfredo.[29]
When she went home, Alfredo and Wilfredo were with her in a group.[30]
Suddenly, she heard a commotion and people ran in different directions.
She had no knowledge about the incident subject of the case because she
did not see to which direction Wilfredo had ran.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Regional Trial
Court
found the accused guilty of murder in a Decision[32]
dated January 14, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court finds accused Wilfredo Pabillo guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and there being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances to off-set the same, the Court hereby imposes
upon said accused the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify
the
heirs of the deceased Francisco Ipil the sum of P50,000.00 for the
death
of the latter and to pay the costs. The bail bond of the accused is
hereby
ordered cancelled and the convicted accused is hereby ordered committed
immediately (sic) to jail pursuant to the Supreme Court Circular to
that
effect.
SO ORDERED.
Wilfredo elevated to
this
Court the RTC judgment and assigned as sole error the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
THE TRIAL
COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY AS ATTENDANT IN THE
COMMISSION
OF THE CRIME.[33]
We do not entertain any
doubt that Wilfredo delivered the fatal bolo blows on Ipil in the
evening
of November 30, 1986. This conclusion can be drawn from the direct,
positive
and categorical assertions made by prosecution witness Dador regarding
the identity of the assailants, the details of the assault, and the
weapons
used.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dador narrated that
when Ipil reached the duo, Wilfredo suddenly got hold of Ipil's arm,
pushed
him towards the front, and hacked him on the head. This was followed by
Alfredo's hacking blow on Ipil's left arm when the latter was about to
fall. When Ipil tried to run, he was again hacked at the back by
Wilfredo.
This straightforward account of how Ipil was killed very closely
corresponded
with the descriptions of Ipil's wounds as detailed in the Post-Mortem
Examination
Report[34]
as follows: hacking wound located on the left elbow, hacking wound on
the
head, right frontal region, and wound at the scapular region. This
physical
evidence speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[35]
Consistent with the testimony of the principal prosecution witness, it
establishes beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of
accused-appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the
ante-mortem
statement of the victim, made under consciousness of imminent death,
pointed
to Wilfredo and his father as the perpetrators of the crime. The trial
court correctly considered the declaration of the victim "Sammy, I was
hacked by Wilfredo Pabillo and Alfredo Pabillo and bring me to the
hospital
because I might die" as Ipil's dying declaration. The Court in a number
of cases[36]
consistently upheld the admissibility of a dying declaration, the
requisites
of which are: that the declaration must concern the cause and
surrounding
circumstances of the declarant's death; that at the time the
declaration
was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending
death;
that the declarant is competent as a witness; and, that the declaration
is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide, in
which
the declarant is a victim.cralaw:red
The established
facts
in this case show that all these requisites concur. When he made the
statement,
Ipil was conscious of his impending death. This may be gleaned not only
from his insistence that he should immediately be brought to the
hospital,
but also from the serious nature of his wounds and the fact that he
died
shortly afterwards.chan
robles virtual law
It is well to point
out that at the trial, Wilfredo firmly maintained that he did not
participate
in the killing of Ipil. He claimed that he was a mere spectator and
conveniently
shifted the blame to his father Alfredo, whose lips have already been
sealed
by death. The trial court therefore soundly rejected his version of
denial
as a plain afterthought, a devised plot to escape punishment that
cannot
prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness and the
physical evidence that supports the judgment of conviction. Now on
appeal,
he no longer contradicts the theory of the prosecution that he and his
father confederated in the attack on Ipil and that he inflicted the
fatal
injuries which led to death of the victim. Instead, he assigns as the
sole
error the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying
circumstance
of treachery beyond reasonable doubt. This change of strategy merely
accentuates
the strength of the prosecution evidence which sufficiently rebutted
the
constitutional presumption of innocence. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Wilfredo has been
charged
with and convicted of the crime of murder. Article 248[37]
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that to be liable for
murder,
the prosecution must prove that the accused committed the killing of
another
person under any of the attendant circumstances specified therein. Of
these
circumstances, the prosecution alleged in the Amended Information[38]
the qualifying circumstance of treachery to elevate the killing to
murder.
Unfortunately, the trial court failed to discuss the presence or
absence
of treachery in the body of the decision although obviously, it was
considered
in qualifying the killing and convicting the accused of murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, such a
lapse is not fatal to the validity of the decision. An appeal in a
criminal
proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all errors, by
commission
or by omission, as may be imputable to the trial court.[39]
A painstaking scrutiny of the evidence in this case leads us to agree
with
the trial court that the accused-appellant is guilty of murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under substantive
law,
there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[40]
Two conditions must then concur for treachery to be present, viz., (1)
the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and; (2) the deliberate or
conscious adoption of the means of execution.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon the facts
established
by the prosecution, we agree with the trial court that the crime
committed
by Wilfredo was accompanied by alevosia. In this regard, the Solicitor
General[42]
agrees that this circumstance has been correctly taken into account in
qualifying the crime to murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On this point,
Wilfredo
avers in his appeal brief that the prosecution failed to show that the
assault made upon the person of Ipil was not sudden and unexpected as
to
have caught the deceased unprepared to meet the assault, noting that
when
Ipil went out to face his assailants, he already sensed the danger upon
seeing that both of them were armed with unsheathed bolos. We
disagree. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ipil had no
foreboding
of the danger he would be facing when he went down to meet Alfredo and
Wilfredo. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the duo's
manner
and behavior, when they requested him to come down, was in any way
threatening.
Alfredo was his uncle by affinity, while Wilfredo was his relative by
consanguinity.
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Ipil could not have
anticipated that they would hurt or kill him at a place where so many
people
could witness the crime and where prayers were being held for a
departed
soul.[43]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The testimony of the
eyewitness, Francisco Dador, sufficiently established the presence of
treachery.
The following was Dador's testimony:[44]
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: What happened
after
the two accused both surnamed Pabillo arrived?
A: Alfredo Pabillo
called
Francisco Ipil to go out of the house.
Q: Who actually
called
Francisco Ipil alias Baludo?
A: Alfredo Ma'am.
Q: Who is this
Baludo?
A: Francisco Ipil
ma'am.
He was the one.
Q: What did
Alfredo
said to Francisco Ipil when he called him to go out of the house?
A: He said,
Francisco
Ipil alias "Baludo" said (sic), please come out because I have an
important
matter to discuss with you.
Q: Where was
Alfredo
when he called for Francisco Ipil?
A: He was in the
yard
of the house.
Q: Did you see if
Alfredo
had anything with him while calling for Francisco Ipil?
A: I saw that he
was
carrying something.
Q: What was he
carrying?
A: A bolo.
Q: How was the
bolo
held?
A: He was holding
the
bolo with his right hand.
Q: At the time
Alfredo
was calling Francisco where was he? Wilfredo also?
A: They were
standing
side by side.
Q: Did you see if
Wilfredo
was carrying anything also?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: What was he
carrying?
A: A long bolo.
Q: How did
Francisco
Ipil react when he was called by Wilfredo?
A: He went out of
the
house slowly.
Q: To what
direction?
A: Towards the
front
of Wilfredo Pabillo.
Q: What happened
after
Francisco Ipil went out of the house?
A: He was pushed
by
Wilfredo using his left hand. (witness demonstrating)
Q: To what
direction
was he pushed?
A: Towards the
front.
Q: What happened
to
Francisco after he was pushed?
A: He struggled.
Q: Then, what
happened?
A: He was met with
a
hacking thrust towards the head.
Q: By whom?
A: Wilfredo
Pabillo.
Q: What did
Wilfredo
Pabillo used in hacking?
A: A long bolo.
Q: How long was
the
bolo?
A: 39 inches, more
or
less to (sic) and a half feet.
Q: Was Francisco
Ipil
hit?
A: On his forehead.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: What happened
after
Francisco was hit?
A: When he was
about
to fall down he was hacked on his left arm.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: Who hacked him
on
his left arm?
A: Wilfredo.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: Was he able to
retaliate?
A: No ma'am.
Q: Was he carrying
anything
at the time he was hacked?
A: No ma'am.
Q: What happened
after
he was hit on the left arm?
A: While Francisco
Ipil
was about to run, this Wilfredo Pabillo again hacked him hitting on his
back.
Dador's
straightforward
account of the events on that fateful night was consistent even during
the cross-examination:[45]
Q: Did you see any
danger
when you saw the two holding their bolos while they were calling
Francisco
Ipil to come down?
A: No, sir.
Q: So you did not
mind
(sic) of any danger?
A: No, sir.
Q: And you know
these
two Pabillos?
A: Yes, because we
are
barangay mates.
Q: You did not
invite
them to the house for supper?
A: No, sir.
Q: You also did
not
see any danger when you saw Francisco Ipil being pushed by Wilfredo?
A: I was looking
at
them and I did not say anything.
Q: Of your own
knowledge,
was there any grudge between them?
A: No, sir.
Q: How did
Wilfredo
push Francisco Ipil?
A: By using his
left
hand towards the front of Francisco.
Q: Did you not say
that
he was holding with his right hand the bolo?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And this
Francisco
and Wilfredo were facing each other?
A: They were
adjacent
to each other.
Q: And with the
left
hand holding the flashlight he used that flashlight to push Francisco?
A: Yes, it was his
knuckles
that hit Francisco.
Q: When he was
pushed
was it backwards or to the front?
A: Towards the
front.
Q: Who hacked
first?
A: Wilfredo sir.
Q: And as
Francisco
staggard (sic) forward he was met by Wilfredo?
A: He was met with
a
hacking thrust by Wilfredo.
Q: And what
happened
to Francisco?
A: He fell down.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: And Francisco
did
not say anything while he was being hacked?
A: No, sir.
Q: Neither did you
hear
any word from Wilfredo and Alfredo?
A: No, sir.
Q: You mean there
was
no noise that you heard while the hacking blows was (sic) going on?
A: Alfredo said
something.
Q: What did he say?
A: Never mind him
because
he is going to die.
Q: Is that all
what
(sic) you heard?
A: That was after
Francisco
was hit in the head.
Q: And the hacking
blows
were delivered successively one on the elbow, on the forehead and at
the
back and then Francisco fell to the creek?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you said
that
you saw Francisco run?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Even if it was
dark
you still saw him running?
A: Yes, because
the
light inside the house illuminated around the house.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
The foregoing testimony
clearly established the presence of the requisites of treachery. The
attack
by Alfredo and Wilfredo on the victim was sudden, unexpected, without
warning,
and without provocation. Ipil's action of going out of the house to
meet
the duo shows that he never expected an assault from them. He did not
know
what was coming. He was pushed, and immediately hacked without a word
being
uttered. He was totally unprepared. Thus, he was unable to put up a
defense.
All that he was able to do after the two (2) mercilessly hacked him on
the head and left arm was to run. Without remorse, Wilfredo attacked
him
from behind.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is also obvious
that
the accused-appellant and his deceased father employed means or methods
in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specially to
insure
its execution without risk to themselves arising from the defense which
the victim might have made. The combined, unrelenting attack was
executed
against an unarmed victim in such a manner that the latter had no
chance
of defending himself, albeit the attack was frontal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In United States v.
Cornejo,[46]
this Court ruled that "it is proper to consider treachery as a
qualifying
circumstance of murder if the attack was sudden and unexpected and not
preceded by any dispute and the deceased was unable to prepare his
defense
though he was face to face with his assailant." In said case, the
victim
was requested by the two (2) accused to come down from a house. He
descended
as he was told. One of the accused told the victim that he needed the
latter
and they, with the other accused, went out of the house. After they had
gone a few yards, one of the accused, without uttering a word, turned
halfway
and struck the victim a blow on the head with a palma brava club and
followed
it up with two more blows. As the victim stooped over, the other
accused
struck him several blows in the face with a bolo and then the
assailants
fled. They were convicted of murder qualified by treachery and
aggravated
by premeditation.cralaw:red
In People v. Basadre,[47]
we likewise found the attack made by the assailant face to face with
the
victim while the latter was leaning on a juke-box scanning the list of
musical selections available to play to be qualified by treachery,
considering
that the latter was unarmed, was totally unaware of the coming attack
and
was not in apposition to defend himself. So is the killing in People v.
Ablao,[48]
where the accused, after detaching himself from the cluster of people,
walked to where the victim was, put his left arm around the victim's
shoulder
and then whipped out a stainless, pointed, bladed knife and repeatedly
stabbed the victim on the front portion of his body.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, all
the
elements of treachery as defined in Article 14, paragraph 16, of the Revised
Penal Code were likewise established beyond doubt.cralaw:red
On the matter of
appellant's
civil liability ex delicto, it has been the ruling of the Court to
outrightly
award P50,000.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the victim.[50]
Thus, we uphold the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as damages.
Moreover,
as ruled in People vs. De Los Santos,[51]
an additional award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is justified in
the absence of proof for the award of actual damages, and a further
P25,000.00
as exemplary damages, in accordance with our ruling in People v.
Nicolas.[52]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the decision of the RTC convicting Wilfredo Pabillo of
murder
and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
victim
Francisco Ipil the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity and damages is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, appellant is hereby ordered to
pay the heirs of Francisco Ipil the additional amount of P25,000.00 as
temperate damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo,
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Record, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Vide Order dated August 10, 1988, Record, p. 76.
[4]
Vide Certificate of Death of Alfredo Pabillo, Record, p. 107.
[5]
TSN dated January 23, 1989, pp. 3, 7.
[6]
Id., p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 3–4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
The victim's alias as testified to by witness Dador, Id., p. 3.
[9]
Id., p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., pp. 4–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 5–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., pp. 5, 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., pp. 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN dated March 29, 1989, p. 2.
[17]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Exhibit "A", Record, p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN dated October 30, 1989, p. 2.
[20]
Id., p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id., pp. 7–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id., p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., pp. 4–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id., pp. 5–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id., p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
TSN dated March 28, 1990, pp. 2–3.
[30]
Id., p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Record, pp. 150–157.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Rollo, p. 67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Exhibit "A", supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
People v. Silvano, G.R. No. 125923, January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA 650.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People v. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 67690-91, January 20, 2002, 205 SCRA
213;
People v. Israel, G.R. No. 97027, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 155; People
v. Apa-ap, Jr., G.R. No. 11093, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA 468; People
v.
Pama, G.R. Nos. 90297-98, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 385.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions
of
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the
following
attendant circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid
of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons
to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding
of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship,
or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving
great waste and ruin.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph,
or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic
or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering
of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his persons or corpse.
[38]
Amended Information, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People v. Valerio, 197 Phil. 883 (1982).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Paragraph 16, Article 14, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People v. Caisip, G.R. No. 119757, May 21, 1998, 290 SCRA 451, 461
[1998].
[42]
Vide Appellee's Brief, Rollo, pp. 90–102.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Appellee's Brief, supra, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
TSN dated January 23, 1989, pp. 3–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Id., pp. 10-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
28 Phil. 457 (1914), cited in I Ramon C. Aquino and Carolina
Griño-Aquino,
The Revised Penal Code, 1997 ed., p. 434.
[47]
G.R. No. L-36383, April 17, 1984, 128 SCRA 641.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
G.R. No. 99839, January 14, 1994, 229 SCRA 280.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People v. Basadre, 128 SCRA 641; People v. Ablao, 229 SCRA 280.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People v. Callet, G.R. No. 135701, 09 May 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
G.R. No. 135919, 09 May 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
G.R. No. 137782, 01 April 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |