SECOND DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
132351
January 10, 2002
-versus-
ALEXANDER SALVA Y
PATEÑA AND
FERDINAND SALVA
Y PATEÑA,
Accused-Appellants. D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
On appeal is the joint
decision[1]
dated February 24, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal,
Branch
80, in Criminal Cases No. 1476-T and No. 1486-T against the brothers
Alexander,
Ferdinand, and Rolito Salva for murder and for frustrated homicide,
respectively.
In the first case, the court convicted appellant Alexander Salva of
murder
and appellant Ferdinand Salva of homicide, and ordered both appellants
to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim, Palmero Milanes,
P12,000 as actual damages, P100,000 as moral damages, and the costs of
the suit. In the second case, it convicted only appellant Alexander
Salva
of frustrated homicide and ordered him to pay the victim, SPO1 Mariano
Cura, P36,000 as actual damages, P50,000 as moral damages, and P10,000
as attorney's fees. Accused Rolito Salva was acquitted in both cases.
Appellant
Ferdinand Salva was acquitted in the second case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The indictments against
Ferdinand, Alexander and Rolito Salva in Criminal Cases No. 1476-T and
No. 1486-T, respectively, read:
In Criminal Case No.
1476-T:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
10th day of January 1995 in the Municipality of Tanay, Province of
Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and
aiding with one another, armed with a fan knife and .38 caliber
revolver
(Squires Bingham) with serial number 179533, with intent to kill,
evident
premeditation and by means of treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab and shot one
Palmero
L. Milanes, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple stab and shot
wounds
which directly cause[d] his death.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
In Criminal Case No.
1486-T:
That on or about the
10th day of January 1995 in the Municipality of Tanay, Province of
Rizal,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating
together
and mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, did
then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
with
the said bladed weapon one SPO1 Mariano Tejada Y Cura on his body,
thereby
inflicting upon the latter wounds which would ordinarily cause his
death,
thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced
the
crime of murder, as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it
by
reason of cause or causes independent of his will, that is, due to the
timely and able medical attendance rendered to said SPO1 Mariano Tejada
Y. Cura.[3]
During arraignment Ferdinand,
Alexander and Rolito Salva pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the cases
were
jointly tried.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution presented
the following witnesses: Pablito Tibay, the jeepney conductor; SPO1
Mariano
Cura, assisting policeman and private complainant for the charge of
frustrated
murder; Rodney Tan, one of the jeepney passengers; Elmer Figueroa,
tricycle
driver; Sgt. Pablo Villegas, responding policeman; Dr. Bayani Viado,
attending
physician of SPO1 Cura; Jesusa Vergara, medico-legal officer of the PNP
Crime Laboratory who autopsied the deceased; SPO1 Joseph Pueblo,
investigating
policeman; SPO1 Renato Ragadi, patrol mate of SPO1 Cura; and Wilma
Milanes,
wife of the deceased.[4]
The prosecution's version
of the incident, as summed up by the Solicitor General, is as follows:
On January 10, 1995,
around 10:00 a.m., Palmero Milanes was driving a passenger jeepney with
Pablito Tibay as conductor going to Tanay, Rizal when Ferdinand Salva
waved
at them and tried to stop the jeep and then uttered "putang ina mo" (p.
5-7, TSN, August 8, 1995). Failing to stop the jeep, Ferdinand took a
tricycle
and followed the jeep but Milanes maneuvered the jeep and went to the
police
outpost in Pililla, Rizal where he sought police assistance (p. 8,
id.).
SPO1 Mariano Cura, clad in half-uniform (wearing khaki pants with
civilian
short) boarded the jeep with its driver and conductor (pp. 16, 21,
29-30,
TSN, September 1, 1995). The three, all seated in the front seat, with
Milanes driving, proceeded to Tanay to find Ferdinand to settle a small
damage caused by Milanes' jeep to Ferdinand's tricycle (p. 23, id.).cralaw:red
When they reached Barangay
Aldea, Tanay, the three got stuck in a traffic jam. While waiting for
the
traffic jam to ease up, Tibay sighted Ferdinand inside a tricycle (pp.
9-10, TSN, August 18, 1995). Ferdinand who also saw the jeep and its
occupants,
alighted from the tricycle, approached the jeep, grabbed Milanes out of
the jeep and they grappled with each other (p. 11, id.).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While Milanes' head
was under Ferdinand's armpit, appellant stabbed Milanes' back twice
with
a fan knife (pp. 11-12, TSN, September 1, 1995).cralaw:red
While the fight was
going on, SPO1 Cura alighted from the jeep, took his gun and while he
was
about to make a warning shot, appellant stabbed him (p. 13, TSN,
September
1, 1995). Thereafter, Ferdinand freed Milanes and helped Alexander in
grappling
for the possession of SPO1 Cura's gun. At this point, the gun suddenly
fired hitting Rolito Salva's foot. Thereupon, Milanes went back to his
jeep.cralaw:red
Later, Ferdinand got
hold of SPO1 Cura's gun and shot Milanes who slumped behind the
steering
wheel of the jeep (pp. 15-16, id.). SPO1 Cura also went inside the jeep
holding his wounded stomach (p. 18, id.).cralaw:red
Milanes and SPO1 Cura
were brought to the Tanay Community Hospital by Rodney Tan. Milanes
died
while SPO1 Cura survived after receiving treatment at the Morong
General
Hospital (pp. 19-20, TSN, September 1, 1995).[5]
The version of the defense
is slightly different, as revealed by the testimonies of appellant and
his co-accused herein summarized as follows:
According to co-accused
FERDINAND SALVA, on January 10, 1995, at about 7:00 A.M., he was
driving
his own tricycle with his brothers Rolito and Alexander on board. Upon
reaching the San Ildefonso Lines terminal, they were caught in a
traffic
jam when Palmero Milanes alighted from a jeep and boxed Rolito.
Ferdinand
halted the tricycle and tried to stop Milanes from further boxing
Rolito.
Later, when he saw SPO1 Mariano Cura point a gun at Rolito, he parried
the gun causing it to fire, and a bullet hit Rolito. Then, SPO1 Cura
pointed
the gun at him but he was able to hold Cura's wrist and the two of them
grappled for the gun until both of them reached the driver's seat of
the
jeep. It was then that the gun fired, hitting somebody. The gun fell on
the pavement. He picked up the gun and ran towards Pililla where he was
met by a soldier who fired warning shots. He voluntarily surrendered to
the police.[6]
ROLITO SALVA essentially
corroborated his brother's testimony. He added that during the struggle
for the gun, it accidentally fired and a bullet hit Milanes. According
to him, Ferdinand asked Alexander to bring him to the Tanay General
Hospital
where his right foot was treated. He recalled that he came to know that
on January 9, 1995, the jeep of Milanes had suddenly stopped, causing
damage
to the front of Ferdinand's tricycle. He reported the incident to his
brothers
and they tried later to look for Milanes. Because of the injury Rolito
suffered during the shooting incident on January 10, 1995, Rolito filed
an attempted homicide case against SPO1 Cura, which is still pending
before
the MTC of Tanay, Rizal.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to appellant
ALEXANDER SALVA, on January 10, 1995, at about 7:00 A.M., he was at
Hulo,
Pililla, Rizal on an errand to get money from his employer, Andy
Poblete.
He failed to get the money but while on his way to Tanay, his brother
Ferdinand
saw him and asked him to board the tricycle where his other brother
Rolito
and two passengers were riding. After the two passengers alighted, they
continued on the way going to the tricycle terminal in Pililla, but
they
were caught in a traffic jam. At this juncture, he saw a man box
Rolito.
He also heard Ferdinand shout, "Hoy, hoy," while getting off the
tricycle.
He saw Ferdinand push away that man after Ferdinand had put his arm
around
the latter's neck. Another person (who turned out to be SPO1 Cura)
arrived
and hit his brother Rolito with a "yantok". Alexander, who had a limp,
got off the tricycle, at the very moment Rolito was shot. Alexander
said
he had grabbed "something" (later identified as a fan knife) from the
tricycle's
tool kit and swung it against the boxer who turned out to be Palmero
Milanes.
According to Alexander, he did not know if he hit Milanes. He then saw
someone [SPO1 Cura] poke a gun at Rolito, but his brother Ferdinand
parried
the gun. It fired and a bullet hit Rolito. He then heard Ferdinand
shout,
"May tama si Rolito, dalhin mo sa hospital." Thus, Alexander loaded
Rolito
in the tricycle and brought him to the Tanay General Hospital.[8]
Andreo Poblete, employer
of Alexander; Florita Deligencia, a passenger of Rolito and Ferdinand;
and Larry Anievas, a bystander, also testified to corroborate the story
of the three accused.cralaw:red
On February 24, 1997,
the trial court rendered a joint decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. In Criminal Case
No. 1476-T:
a) Convicting Alexander
Salva of the crime of Murder and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
b) Convicting Ferdinand
Salva of the crime of homicide and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum
to 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.cralaw:red
c) Acquitting Rolito
Salva of the crime charged.cralaw:red
d) Both accused Alexander
Salva and Ferdinand Salva are also ordered to pay jointly and severally
to the heirs of Palmero Milanes the amount of P12,000.00 as actual
damages,
P100,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs.cralaw:red
2. In Criminal Case
No. 1486-T:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Convicting accused
Alexander Salva of the crime of frustrated homicide and he is hereby
sentenced
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 years of prision correctional
as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum. The said accused is
also ordered to pay SPO1 Mariano Cura the amount of P36,000.00 as
actual
damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as attorney's fees.cralaw:red
b) Acquitting accused
Ferdinand and Rolito Salva of the crime charged.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[9]
From this decision,
Alexander and Ferdinand Salva filed a notice of appeal on March 3, 1997.[10]
On December 4, 1998, Ferdinand Salva filed a motion to withdraw appeal,[11]
which we granted in a resolution dated January 11, 1999.[12]
We are now concerned only with Alexander Salva's appeal.[13]
In his brief, appellant
Alexander Salva now contends that the lower court gravely erred in:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
CONVICTING ACCUSED
ALEXANDER
SALVA OF MURDER IN THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT THE ACT OF THE
LATTER
CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM OR THAT TREACHERY CHARACTERIZED THE
STABBING
OF THE VICTIM.
II
CONVICTING FERDINAND
SALVA OF HOMICIDE IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
SAID ACCUSED ACTUALLY FIRED THE GUN THAT HIT THE VICTIM.
III
CONVICTING ACCUSED
ALEXANDER
SALVA OF FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE NOTWITHSTANDING UNREBUTTED PROOF THAT SAID
ACCUSED RUSHED TO THE SCENE ONLY IN DEFENSE OF HIS YOUNGER BROTHER,
ROLITO
SALVA.
IV
AWARDING MORAL
DAMAGES
BOTH TO THE FAMILY OF THE DECEASED AND SPO1 MARIANO CURA IN THE ABSENCE
OF PROVEN CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING IMPOSITION OF THE SAME.[14]
Appellant Alexander
Salva claims that he cannot be held liable for murder in Criminal Case
No. 1476-T, because the stab wounds of Milanes were not the cause of
his
death.[15]
Further, he protests the trial court's finding that his stabbing
Milanes
was attended by treachery. He insists that he stabbed Milanes in
defense
of his two (2) brothers. He further assails the trial court's ruling
that
his brother Ferdinand was liable for homicide because Milanes was
accidentally
hit by the gun while Ferdinand and SPO1 Cura were grappling for it. He
also claims that the identity of the person who fired the shot that
killed
Milanes was not positively established.cralaw:red
In Criminal Case No.
1486-T, appellant assails his conviction for frustrated homicide for
the
stabbing of SPO1 Cura. Again, he claims he was merely acting in defense
of his brothers. He adds, that his offense was only for physical
injuries.
He had no intention of killing Cura and it was Milanes who provoked
them
while it was SPO1 Cura who hit his brother Rolito with a "yantok".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its brief for the
appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the trial
court
did not err in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, and
in giving full faith and credence to those of the prosecution. The OSG
adds that the trial court did not overlook facts, which if considered,
would alter the result of the case. The OSG prayed for the affirmance
of
the conviction of appellant and the penalties imposed.cralaw:red
In a criminal case,
an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. Issues whether
raised
or not by the parties may be resolved by the appellate court.[16]
However, considering the assigned errors, we find that the issues for
resolution
here pertain to (1) the assessment of credibility of the witnesses; (2)
the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, and of defense
of relatives as a justifying circumstance; and (3) the propriety of
conviction
of the appellant for murder and for frustrated homicide, and of the
corresponding
sentences imposed.cralaw:red
Anent the first issue,
the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court is
generally
accorded great respect.[17]
In this case, the trial court found that appellant and his co-accused
were
positively and categorically identified as the offenders by the
surviving
victim, SPO1 Cura, and corroborated by eyewitnesses Figueroa and Tan.
These
witnesses testified that appellant and his brother Ferdinand grabbed
the
victim, Palmero Milanes, out of the jeepney by pulling his left hand.[18]
Thereafter, appellant Alexander stabbed Milanes at the back using a
"29"
or a fan knife, while Ferdinand had his arms around Milanes' neck.[19]
The knife lacerated the victim's lungs.[20]
Thereupon, SPO1 Cura alighted from the jeep to pacify them, but
appellant
Alexander turned to Cura and also stabbed him in the stomach as the
police
officer was about to fire a warning shot.[21]
Alexander and Ferdinand let go of Milanes and then assaulted Cura. But
when the wounded Milanes had forced himself onto the driver's seat of
the
jeepney and started its engine to escape, Ferdinand shot and hit him at
the back.[22]
The trial court found
that both appellant Alexander and his brother Ferdinand inflicted the
wounds
that caused the death of the deceased. The testimonial evidence and the
physical evidence support said finding. The official report stated that
the cause of death of Milanes was hemorrhage resulting from gunshot and
stab wounds in the trunk of his body.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's claim that
he acted in defense of relatives (brothers), in our view, cannot be
sustained.
To invoke this justifying circumstance successfully, there should be
reasonable
necessity for the action taken as well as the means used.[24]
Here, the weapon used and the grave wounds inflicted on the victims
negate
the reasonableness of appellant's action taken allegedly in defense of
his brothers. Moreover, on this point, we find appellant's testimony on
record to be unconvincing, confused, and evasive. Hence there is no
sufficient
proof of defense of relatives which, like self-defense, must be proved
positively and convincingly.cralaw:red
Neither does appellant's
contention, that it was uncertain whether it was SPO1 Cura or Ferdinand
Salva who pulled the trigger, have any merit. SPO1 Cura and Elmer
Figueroa
categorically testified that it was Ferdinand who shot Milanes while
the
latter was trying to start the engine of his jeep in order to escape.[25]
We now come to the nature
of the offense committed by appellant and the propriety of his
conviction
for murder. After a careful consideration of the evidence on record, we
are convinced that the crime committed by Alexander Salva is homicide
only,
not murder qualified by treachery.[26]
Treachery (alevosia)
is committed when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means,
methods,
and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and
forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the
accused
without danger to his person.[27]
In this case, attendant circumstances including the sequence of events,
as found by trial court and as shown by the records, rule out the
presence
of the first element of alevosia. True, appellant stabbed Milanes at
the
back while Ferdinand encircled his arm in a tight grip around the
victim's
neck. But recall, however, that Milanes was together with an armed
policeman
(SPO1 Cura), Rodney Tan, and other passengers.[28]
There were also on-lookers. Note likewise that the incident happened at
past 7 o'clock A.M.[29]
during a traffic jam.[30]
The presence of Cura (albeit in civilian attire) and his companions who
came to Milanes' rescue shows that the victim was not completely
helpless.[31]
Neither is there sufficient
evidence to establish that appellant consciously adopted the mode of
attack.
The records reveal that (1) a day earlier there was a mishap involving
Milanes' jeepney and Fedinand Salva's tricycle; and (2) a verbal
confrontation[32]
with curses had ensued between appellant's brother Ferdinand and
Milanes.
This was before the adversaries found themselves in a traffic jam and
the
Salvas yanked Milanes out of the jeepney.[33]
Treachery is not present where the victim, before being attacked, had a
heated argument with one of the malefactors which must have placed him
on guard, aside from standing face to face with them, so that the
initial
assault was not sudden or unforeseen.[34]
Even if the aggression was from behind, it is not treacherous if
preceded
by a heated argument.[35]
Finally, as SPO1 Cura
himself admitted on cross-examination, the meeting between the two
groups
was accidental, while the two vehicles where they were on board were
not
moving due to the heavy traffic. It was only upon sighting Milanes,
after
10 to 15 minutes while on a traffic standstill, did appellant and
co-accused
assault Milanes.[36]
Treachery cannot be considered when the meeting between the victim and
the accused was only accidental.[37]
In sum, we agree with
appellant that the killing of Milanes was not characterized by
treachery,
hence it was only homicide and not murder. Appellant's conviction for
frustrated
homicide for the stabbing of SPO1 Cura, however, must be sustained.
Appellant's
intent to kill as earlier discussed is reflected by the weapon he used;
and the nature and position of the wounds inflicted.[38]
Dr. Viado testified that SPO1 Cura suffered "thru and thru laceration
of
the gall bladder, stomach and the jejunum" as a result of the stabbing
by appellant.[39]
Were it not for timely medical attention, SPO1 Cura would have died
from
said wounds.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Coming now to the propriety
of the sentences imposed on appellant. Without any mitigating or
aggravating
circumstance, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, imposed
in
its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant's
sentence should be prision mayor to reclusion temporal in its medium
period,
for the death of Palmero Milanes. The penalty for frustrated homicide,
which is one degree lower, is prision mayor,[40]
imposed in its medium period. Again applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, appellant should be sentenced to prision correccional to prision
mayor
in its medium period,[41]
for the frustrated homicide in the stabbing of SPO1 Cura.cralaw:red
On the award of damages.
The award of P100,000 as moral damages in Criminal Case No. 1476-T does
not appear to be amply supported by the evidence on record. Moral
damages
are not awarded to punish the defendant but to compensate the heirs of
the victim. Pursuant to current jurisprudence, the award of moral
damages
should only be P50,000. But civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000
for
the death of Palmero Milanes should likewise be awarded to his heirs.
The
award of P12,000 for actual damages[42]
is supported by the evidence and should be affirmed. In Criminal Case
No.
1486-T, for frustrated homicide, the award of P50,000 as moral damages
to SPO1 MARIANO CURA is properly reduced to P20,000.[43]
But the award of P36,000 as actual damages should be increased to
P46,770.65
in accordance with the evidence presented.[44]
Finally, the award of P10,000 for attorney's fees is proper and ought
to
be affirmed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No.
1476-T,
appellant ALEXANDER SALVA is found guilty of homicide. He is sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor
as
minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal
as maximum. He is further ordered to pay jointly and severally with his
co-accused Ferdinand Salva, the heirs of PALMERO L. MILANES, the amount
of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P12,000 as actual damages but only
P50,000
as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case No.
1486-T, appellant ALEXANDER SALVA is found guilty of frustrated
homicide,
and he is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year and
one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum.[45]
He is also ordered to pay SPO1 MARIANO CURA the amount of P46,770.65 as
actual damages, P20,000 as moral damages and P10,000 as attorney's fees.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Buena, J.,
on official
leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 26-32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, Crim. Case No. 1476-T, p. 1.
[3]
Records, Crim. Case No. 1486-T, p. 1.
[4]
Rollo, p. 27.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 124-127.
[6]
Id. at 28.
[7]
Id. at 28-29.
[8]
Id. at 29-30.
[9]
Rollo, p. 32.
[10]
Id. at 33.
[11]
Id. at 47.
[12]
Id. at 49-50.
[13]
Except as Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure may
be
applicable, in favor of one who did not appeal.
[14]
Id. at 62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rollo, p. 63.
[16]
People v. CA, G.R. No. 128986, 308 SCRA 687, 703 (1999).
[17]
People v. Taguba, G.R. Nos. 112792-93, 342 SCRA 199, 208 (2000).
[18]
TSN, September 1, 1995, p. 8.
[19]
Id. at 10-11.
[20]
TSN, February 2, 1996, p. 10.
[21]
Id. at 13.
[22]
Id. at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Records, Crim. Case No. 1476-T, p. 15.
[24]
People vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 109660, 275 SCRA 19, 32 (1997).
[25]
TSN, September 1, 1995, p. 14.
[26]
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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
in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following
circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1.
With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or means or persons
to insure or afford impunity.
x
x x
[27]
People vs. Sabalones, G.R. No. 123485, 294 SCRA 751, 799 (1998); People
vs. Linamin, et al, G.R. No. 128629, February 22, 2001, p.18.
[28]
TSN, November 22, 1995, p. 22; TSN, December 1, 1995, p.16.
[29]
TSN, November 22, 1995, p. 3.
[30]
TSN, September 1, 1995, p. 6.
[31]
People v. Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, 199 SCRA 518, 523 (1991).
[32]
TSN, November 22, 1995, p. 8.
[33]
TSN, September 1, 1995, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People vs. Macalino, G.R. No. 79387, 177 SCRA 185, 194 (1989).
[35]
People vs. Balderama, G.R. Nos. 89597-98, 226 SCRA 537, 551 (1993).
[36]
TSN, September 1, 1995, p. 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People v. Velaga, Jr., G.R No. 87202, 199 SCRA 518, 523 (1991).
[38]
People vs. Honra, Jr., G.R. No. 136012-16, 341 SCRA 110, 132 (2000).
[39]
TSN, October 23, 1995, pp. 5, 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a
frustrated
crime is one degree lower than that prescribed by law.
[41]
People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 111194, 280 SCRA 384, 399 (1997).
[42]
Computed as P600 (hospital expense) and P11,000 (funeral expenses),
both
with receipts. TSN, March 18, 1996, p. 5.
[43]
People v. Teodoro, supra note 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Records, p. 206; Exhibits "J" to "J-30", pp. 98-128.
[45]
Rabor vs. People, G.R. No. 140344, 338 SCRA 381, 391 (2000). |