EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
135857
June 18, 2003
-versus-
ADRIANO ARCA,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For automatic review is
the Decision[1]
dated March 12, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern
Samar, Branch 2, convicting appellant Adriano Arca in Criminal Case No.
10866, for the murder of Rommel Godornez. Appellant was sentenced
to death, as well as to indemnify the victim’s heirs in the sum of
P50,000,
and to pay the costs.
Appellant was charged
under the Information dated July 17, 1997, as follows:
That on
July
16, 1997, at about 9:00 o’clock in the morning, at Barangay Maypangdan,
Borongan, Eastern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with
evident premeditation and treachery, and without justifiable cause, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault,
stab
and wound Rommel Godornez[2]
with the use of a sharp pointed weapon (Dipang) which the accused
provided
himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting injuries upon the latter,
which
injuries caused the direct death of the victim, to the damage and
prejudice
of the heirs of the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon arraignment on
September
25, 1997,[4]
appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter.
The prosecution presented
the following as witnesses: Donald Arnulfo, Reynaldo Afable, Susan
Agda,
and Milagros Godornez, mother of the victim. Rebuttal witnesses,
Sofronio Obina and Romeo Arca, were later presented.cralaw:red
DR. EDGARDO E. JUABAN,
examining physician at the Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital, issued
the
post mortem examination (autopsy) report, to which the defense offered
no objection when presented. The report reads: (1) stab wound 1.5
cm length with clean cut edges located at 5th ICS (R) directed
posteriorly
and medially penetrating (R) lung and main pulmonary blood vessel with
massive hemothorax; (2) incised wound 2 cm. length located (L) forearm
medial aspect 0.5 cm. deep. Cause of death: Cardio-pulmonary
arrest
secondary to hypovolemic shock with massive blood loss from stab wound
at (R) anterior chest with direct injury to the (R) lung and pulmonary
blood vessel.cralaw:red
DONALD ARNULFO ALIDO,
a 33-year-old resident of Borongan, Eastern Samar,[5]
testified that on July 16, 1997, at 9:00 o’clock in the morning, he was
at the victim’s house when the stabbing incident occurred. He was
then eating breakfast with Bolaw Alde and Maria Agda in the company of
the victim, Rommel Godornez.[6]
They were there on the occasion of the barrio fiesta. The witness
claimed that he was about one meter away from the doorway so he got a
good
look at what happened on the street outside. He saw that
appellant,
Adriano Arca, came from a house located behind that of the
victim’s.
The victim, who had just left the house for school, was suddenly
stabbed
by appellant at the back, hitting the victim by the right arm and right
breast. He added that he saw appellant attack Rommel once but
perhaps
because the latter tried to parry the blows, he was also hit in the
arm.
The victim then ran towards their house where he was met by the
witness,
Donald, who brought him to the hospital.[7]chanrobles virtual law library
Police Officer REYNALDO
AFABLE, a resident of Barangay Maypangdan, Borongan, testified that a
barangay
tanod went over to his house and informed him of the stabbing. In
response, he went to the scene of the crime and began questioning the
people
in the area who might have seen who the malefactor. When told
that
it was Adriano Arca who stabbed the victim, he immediately ran after
appellant,
who still had in hand the bolo, locally called depang, used in the
stabbing.
Appellant released the bolo and scabbard he was holding, and
surrendered
without a fight. Witness Afable said he brought appellant to the
police station.[8]
In answer to clarificatory
questions by the trial court, witness Afable recalled that it was
Kagawad
Ipe[9]
who went over to his house and informed him of the stabbing.
Kagawad
Ipe went asking for help, saying that somebody, armed with a deadly
weapon,
was running amuck and had already stabbed someone. When Afable
got
to the place, he saw the victim bleeding from a stab wound and the
appellant
still holding a bloodied depang. Appellant tried to hide but
Afable
gave chase. Eventually, appellant surrendered without any
incident.[10]
SUSAN AGDA, aunt of
the victim, testified that on July 16, 1997 at around 9:00 A.M., she
was
at her house together with her nephew, victim Rommel Godornez.
She
was outside her house, one-half meter more or less away from the
doorway, handing out fare money to Rommel, who was then on his way to
ROTC
training. She said she saw appellant from the back of the house,
holding a bolo in hand, and was about to stab Rommel. Then she
saw
appellant hit her nephew with the bolo. At that point, she ran
towards
the house of Kagawad Ipe Suyap, who lives only a fence away from her
house.cralaw:red
MILAGROS GODORNEZ,[11]
mother of the victim, was presented by the prosecution to prove
damages.
She testified that her son was turning 17 years old at the time of his
death. He was a first year Civil Engineering student at the
Eastern
Samar State College. He was a full-time student when he passed
away.[12]
The defense presented
as its first witness, ROBERTO ARCA, the 11-year-old brother of
appellant
Adriano Arca. Roberto testified that in the morning of July 16,
1997,
at about 9:00 o’clock, he was walking home with his brother, the
appellant,
when they bumped into Romeo Arca, their cousin, whom he called "Mano
Romy."
Appellant was drunk. He recalled that out of the blue, Mano Romy
manhandled appellant, who fell down. The deceased, Rommel
Godornez,
arrived and tried to pacify his Mano Romy. But Mano Romy,
according
to the witness, stabbed Rommel with a depang. He said that he was
three meters away from the protagonists and could clearly see what was
going on. According to the witness, Rommel was hit in the right
breast.
His brother, Adriano Arca, was still prostrate on the ground when the
stabbing
occurred. Mano Romy then fled, leaving the depang behind, said
Roberto.
When the police arrived, according to Roberto, it was his brother,
herein
appellant, who got arrested.[13]
Appellant ADRIANO ARCA
was presented as the last witness to testify for the defense. He
corroborated
the testimony of his brother, Roberto Arca, on all material points. He
contradicted the statements of all the prosecution witnesses.chanrobles virtual law library
He denied knowing either
the prosecution witnesses Arnulfo Alido, Susan Agda, SPO1 Renato
Afable,
or the victim Rommel Godornez. He testified that he went to barangay
Maypangdan
the day before the incident, together with his brother, Roberto. They
took
a motorized tricycle and reached the place at around three o’clock p.m.
They visited their uncle, Armando Cartago, and drank gin with other
companions
until around six o’clock p.m. Then they went to enjoy a local dance,
after
which they went back to his uncle’s house. They spent the night there,
and they left at seven o’clock the next morning. Although appellant
felt
inebriated, he and his brother walked back home to Barangay Cagbunga.
On
their way home they came across Romeo Arca, their first-degree cousin.
Without any warning, Romeo punched the appellant four times in the
chest
area, causing the appellant to suffer much pain. The severity of the
pain
coupled with his drunken stupor made him fall to the ground and become
unaware of the occurrences around him. All the appellant remembered
afterwards
was that he was brought to the PNP Office for investigation regarding
the
death of Rommel Godornez. He denied ever having owned or possessed a
depang.[14]
SOFRONIO OBINA, a 39-year-old
resident of Brgy. Maypangdan, testified on rebuttal for the
prosecution.
He claimed that appellant is related to his wife while the victim is
his
neighbor. In the morning of July 16, 1997, at around 9:00 A.M.,
he
said he was sitting outside his "sari-sari" store when the stabbing
took
place. He saw appellant Adriano Arca, staggering along the
street.
According to Sofronio, he did not see Romeo Arca punch appellant.
But he saw appellant Adriano Arca in possession of the depang.
When
the police arrived, he saw appellant slid the depang into its scabbard,
and then promptly threw the weapon away. It was the police who
picked
up the weapon, and thereafter arrested appellant.[15]
ROMEO ARCA also testified
as rebuttal witness for the prosecution. He said that the victim,
Rommel Godornez, was his wife’s nephew who lived with his
family.
He added that appellant, Adriano Arca, is his cousin. According
to
the witness, he was going out of his house to attend mass when the
stabbing
occurred. He denied punching appellant. He said the boy who
was presented as "defense witness," Roberto Arca, was nowhere around
when
the stabbing happened. It was appellant, said the witness, whom
he
saw holding a depang. The witness added he was about 15 meters
away
when appellant was arrested by the police.[16]
On March 12, 1998, the
trial court rendered its decision finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of murder, thus:
WHEREFORE,
and in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused, Adriano
Arca,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and
penalized
under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
7659.
And there being an aggravating circumstance of treachery, the accused
is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. He is hereby
ordered,
further, to indemnify the heirs of Rommel Godornez the sum of P50,000;
and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[17]
Hence, this automatic
review.
Appellant now assigns the following errors: I
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN FINDING THAT THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY WAS ATTENDANT
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS;
PERFORCE,
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT SHOULD ONLY BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE, NOT MURDER.
II
NOTWITHSTANDING
THIS,
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ACCORDING GREATER WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
FLAWED
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS ERRONEOUS FINDING.[18]
Stated simply the issues
presented before us pertain to the credibility of prosecution witnesses
and the sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant of murder
beyond
reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
Appellant contends that
treachery cannot be appreciated against him because there was
sufficient
showing that the blows were frontal, thus negating averments that the
attack
against the victim was sudden. He further claims that from their
respective vantage points, the witnesses did not have an opportunity to
know what transpired prior to the killing, considering that at that
time
of the incident the victim was already out on the street and on his way
to ROTC. He adds that the witnesses could not have known whether
or not an altercation previously ensued before the attack, implying
thereby
that the attack was provoked by a verbal dispute. Finally,
appellant
assails the credibility of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses,
pointing out that their testimonies are inconsistent and contradictory.cralaw:red
For the appellee, the
Office of the Solicitor General contends that the victim was not aware
of the impending attack, because he had his back to the appellant when
he was stabbed, hence there was treachery. Moreover, said the
OSG,
appellant is unable to point out with specificity the alleged
inconsistent
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Citing the case of People
v.
Calayca,[19]
the OSG submits that an affirmative allegation requires proof to be
accepted
by the court. Appellant’s failure to substantiate his claim of
inconsistent
testimonies makes his defense untenable, concludes the OSG.cralaw:red
The trial court found
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible. On this point,
we are in agreement. As elucidated by the presiding judge, Celso
F. Lorenzo, Sr., they corroborate each other on material points, in a
logical
fashion. Further, Judge Lorenzo concluded that treachery
qualified
the offense based on the sworn testimonies of Donald Arnulfo Alido and
Susan Agda, the eyewitnesses to the stabbing incident.chanrobles virtual law library
The main defense of
appellant is bare denial and finger-pointing. He points to a
third
person as the perpetrator of the killing. Relying on the
testimony
of his 11-year-old brother, Roberto, he names Romeo Arca as the
knife-wielder.
Rebuttal witnesses, however, contradicted Roberto’s testimony.cralaw:red
Bare denials of appellant
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declarations
of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[20]
The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
straightforward
and credible. As first-hand accounts, the testimonies of the two
eyewitnesses, Alido and Agda, adequately established the fact of the
killing
and the identity of the killer. They concur in pointing to
appellant,
and no other, as the person who committed the crime.cralaw:red
Well established is
the rule that the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of
the witnesses and the probative value of their testimonies deserve
great
weight for the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the manner by
which the testimonies are given and could see any tell tale sign of a
coached
or rehearsed account.[21]
In this case, no ill
motive was imputed against the eyewitnesses for implicating appellant
in
a grave offense. The defense raised no plausible reason why the
witnesses
for the prosecution would lie or invent scenarios against him.
The
rule is settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness
was actuated by improper motives, his positive and categorical
declarations
on the witness stand, made under solemn oath, should be given full
faith
and credence.[22]
It defies reason for the relatives of the deceased to insist on
appellant’s
guilt if indeed another person committed the crime. Human nature
tells us that the aggrieved relatives would want the real killer
punished
for their loss, and not accept a mere scapegoat to take the rap for the
real malefactor.cralaw:red
We note that barrio
Maypangdan was celebrating its fiesta at the time of the
stabbing.
The testimony of 11-year-old Roberto Arca that the streets were
deserted
when his "Mano Romy" (Romeo Arca), rather than the appellant, allegedly
stabbed the victim, Rommel, does not inspire belief. The boy
would
naturally wish to exculpate his brother, the appellant. But the
boy’s
tale appears rather tall, in the light of his cross-examination,
wherein
he testified thus:
Q: Before
your brother was castigated by Romy Arca did they have any exchange of
words?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
No, sir.cralaw:red
x
x x
Q: And after
Adriano Arca fell down to the ground, it was the time that Rommel
Gordonez
arrived, correct?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: From
where did Rommel Gordonez[23]
come?
A:
From the direction of the other person who was just nearby, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And how
far was that another person where they came from to where your brother
Adriano fall down?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Form where I am seated to the stair of the justice building which is
more
or less 20 meters, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Was that
person from where Rommel Gordonez came from alone?
A:
Yes, sir, he was alone.cralaw:red
Q: And that
person kept on standing that place where he was when Rommel Gordonez
left?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And I
assume that there was a sort of quarrel happening he must be looking at
you at the place where you were?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x
x x
Q: Can you
more or less estimate how many minutes was that from the stabbing up to
the time the policeman arrived?
A:
More or less two (2) minutes, sir. (Underscoring supplied.)[24]
From the foregoing,
we are led to believe there was a person, other than the boy, who
allegedly
witnessed the entire incident. This person was allegedly standing
a mere 20 meters away from the crime scene, and could have seen who
stabbed
whom. Yet, appellant and his defense counsel made no effort to
know
who he was and then present him in court. We can only conclude
that
either his testimony would be fatal to appellant’s cause, or there is
no
such person to corroborate the boy’s version of the incident.
Worse,
the boy’s version could only be a coached scenario to favor appellant.chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant’s testimony
on the boy’s alleged trip to and presence in the barrio Maypangdan, the
crime scene, is itself curious. Thus:
Q: And there
were other passengers in the tricycle who boarded with you in going to
Brgy. Maypangdan?
A:
Yes, sir. There were.cralaw:red
Q: Please
name the passengers.cralaw:red
x
x x
A:
A certain Mano Jun Celada, sir.cralaw:red
PROS. CATUDIO:
Q: Who else
who boarded on that tricycle?
A:
Mano Vic Linggal, sir.cralaw:red
COURT:chanrobles virtual law library
Q: What
is his surname?
A:
I do not know his full name, sir.cralaw:red
PROS. CATUDIO:
Q: And there were
only two whom you remember who boarded with you in that tricycle going
to Maypangdan?
A:
Yes, sir. Mano June Celada was the driver.cralaw:red
x
x x
A:
There were six of us, including the driver, sir. So, there were
five
passengers.cralaw:red
Q: As you
only knew one of the passengers by the name of Vic Linggal, you cannot
recall the names of the other three passengers who boarded with you
from
Brgy. Cagbunga to Brgy. Maypangdan?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x
x x
Q: And when
you arrived at Maypangdan at approximately 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon,
where did you proceed?
A:
I went to the house of my Uncle, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q: Who is
that Uncle of yours?
A:
Armando Cartago, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Were
you alone when you went to your Uncle Armando Cartago?
A:
There were two of us, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Who was
your companion?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
My younger brother, Roberto Arca, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Where
did you meet your younger brother Roberto Arca?
A:
We were together when we left Brgy. Cagbunga, sir.cralaw:red
Q: But you
did not mention him to be with you?
Atty. Limon:chanrobles virtual law library
That is argumentative,
Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q: Why is
it that you did not include the name of your brother as one of your
co-passengers
of that tricycle from Brgy. Cagbunga to Brgy. Maypangdan?
The witness is thinking
of what to answer.cralaw:red
Proceed.cralaw:red
PROS. CATUDIO:
Q: Now,
the reason why you did not mention your brother as one of the
passengers
of that tricycle from Brgy. Cagbunga to Brgy. Maypangdan was he was not
actually one of the passengers then?
A:
He rode in that tricycle with me because we were together, sir.
(Underscoring
supplied.)[25]
Appellant’s account
of his brother’s alleged presence when the incident happened is far
from
convincing. The cited excerpts of appellant’s own testimony and
the
testimony of his brother reflect poorly upon his credibility, and also
upon the probative value of young Roberto’s assertion that another
person
was the malefactor. In contrast, the testimonies of eyewitnesses
Donald Alido and Susan Agda are candid and straightforward that
appellant
had stabbed the victim. Both deserve full faith and credence.cralaw:red
We now come to crucial
issue of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Is there
sufficient
evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that treachery qualified
the killing?
There is treachery when
the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, 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.[26]
Appellant contends that the nature of the wounds sustained by the
victim
only shows that the attack was frontal, hence there was no
treachery.
Nothing could be more fallacious. Even a frontal attack could be
treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no
position to repel the attack or avoid it.[27]
Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in qualifying the
killing
as murder.chanrobles virtual law library
However, we find that
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was not appreciated
in favor of the appellant. Prosecution witness PO Reynaldo Afable
stated that appellant "surrendered."[28]
PO Afable had intended to investigate the incident and "apprehend" the
perpetrator of the stabbing but there was no arrest because in Afable’s
own words,[29]
appellant "surrendered" himself as well as his bolo to the police
officer.
Thus, on direct examination by Prosecutor Vicente Catudio, PO Afable
testified
as follows:
Q: As you
urge him to surrender, did he surrender?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And how
about that small bolo he was bringing what happened to that bolo?
A:
He surrendered the bolo, sir.cralaw:red
Q: I have
here a small bolo, is this the same bolo he surrendered?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: You said
he surrendered to you please inform the court who was the person who
surrendered?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Adriano Arca, sir. (Witness pointing to a person seated at the
front
bench.)
Q: Is that
Adriano Arca who surrendered a small bolo present in court now?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Please
point to him if he is around?
A:
Witness pointing to a person seated on the first bench and the person
pointed
to by witness when asked his name answers Adriano Arca.cralaw:red
On clarificatory questioning
by Judge Lorenzo, PO Afable further testified:chanrobles virtual law library
Q: As a
police officer do you know the difference between surrendering a weapon
and surrendering as the alleged respondent?
A:
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q: Did Mr.
Arca surrender[ed] to you by reason of his possessing the deadly weapon
or did he surrender[ed] because he committed a crime other than
possessing
a weapon?
A:
Because he was in possession of that deadly weapon and he had injured
somebody,
Your Honor.[30]
Murder is punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. Both are indivisible
penalties.
Where a mitigating circumstance like voluntary surrender is present,
there
being no aggravating circumstance, then the lesser penalty should be
imposed.
Thus, in this case, reclusion perpetua, and not death, is the proper
penalty.cralaw:red
A modification on the
award of damages is likewise in order. Although the trial court awarded
the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity, we are constrained,
considering
the circumstances of this case and under prevailing jurisprudence, to
add
another P50,000 by way of moral damages for the mental anguish suffered
by the heirs of the victim on account of his untimely and senseless
demise.[31]
Further, we find that despite the lack of showing of any actual
monetary
loss on account of the victim’s wrongful death, some pecuniary loss has
been suffered.[32]
Hence, we award by way of temperate damages the amount of P15,000,[33]
which is reasonable under the circumstances.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, is
AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. Appellant Adriano Arca is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the MURDER of Rommel Godornez, but appellant’s
sentence
is hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua, with the corresponding
accessory
penalties provided by law. Further, he is ordered to indemnify
the
heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
another
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as temperate damages. Costs
de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 16-34.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Appears as ROMMEL AGDA GODORNES in the Death Certificate; Records, p.
50.
[3]
Records, p. 30. "Dipang" is also spelled as "depang" in the
records.
[4]
Id. at 31.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
TSN, 15 October 1997, p. 2.
[6]
Id. at 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Id. at 3-9.
[8]
Id. at 15-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Also referred to as Eppie Suyap, TSN, 16 October 1997, p. 8.
[10]
Id. at 23-26.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Appears as GORDONEZ, TSN, 16 October 1997, p. 18.
[12]
TSN, 16 October 1997, pp. 18-20.
[13]
TSN, 13 November 1997, pp. 2-9.
[14]
TSN, 4 December 1997, pp. 3-22.
[15]
TSN, 11 December 1997, pp. 2-9.
[16]
TSN, 15 January 1998, pp. 3-11.
[17]
Rollo, p. 34.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Id. at 66.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
G.R. No. 121212, 20 January 1999, 301 SCRA 192, 204.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
People v. Balasa, G.R. No. 106357, 3 September 1998, 295 SCRA 49, 81.
[21]
People v. Adrales, G.R. No. 132152, 19 January 2000, 322 SCRA 424, 435.
[22]
People v. Suplito, G.R. No. 104944, 16 September 1999, 314 SCRA 493,
503.
[23]
Appears as GODORNEZ in the Information; Rollo, p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
TSN, 13 November 1997, pp. 14-16chanrobles virtual law library
.
[25]
TSN, 4 December 1997, pp. 16-19.
[26]
Revised Penal Code, Article 14, par. (16).chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
People v. Tampon, G.R. No. 105583, 5 July 1996, 258 SCRA 115, 132 and
People
v. Miranday, G.R. No. 111581, 23 March 1995, 242 SCRA 620, 628.
[28]
TSN, 15 October 1997, pp. 15-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
Id. at 17-18.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
Id. at 25.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
People v. Manlansing, G.R. Nos. 131736-37, 11 March 2002, p. 20 citing
People v. Casturia, G.R. No. 128819, 20 November 2000, 345 SCRA 206,
212.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Civil Code, ART. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more
than
nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the
court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot,
from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.
chan
robles virtual law library |