EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
137598
November 28, 2003
-versus-
JAYSON BERDIN,
CASTRO
CALEJANAN
AND LUCIANO SALUYO
ALIAS "ISOT",
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
For automatic review
is the Decision[1]
dated January 15, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17,
Kidapawan
City, in Criminal Case No. 67-97 declaring Jayson Berdin, Castro
Calejanan
and Luciano Saluyo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder
and sentencing them to suffer the supreme penalty of death. They were
also
adjudged to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information[2]
dated June 11, 1997 filed against Jayson Berdin, Castro Calejanan and
Luciano
Saluyo, appellants, reads:
"That in
the
evening of June 10, 1997 at Sitio Puas Inda, Barangay Amas,
Municipality
of Kidapawan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, the above-named
accused,
conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with intent to
kill,
armed with bolos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
and with treachery, attack, assault and hack the person of JULIANO
MAMPO,
thereby hitting and inflicting upon the latter multiple hack wounds on
the vital parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
Upon arraignment,
appellants,
with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty.
During the trial, the
prosecution presented as its witnesses Jemuel Mampo, Rudy Yamilo, and
Dr.
Roberto A. Omandac. Their testimonies, woven together, established the
following facts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 10,
1997 at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Juliano Mampo asked his
son
Jemuel to buy fish at Poblacion Kidapawan, Cotabato.[3]
Upon his return, his father told him that appellant Luciano Saluyo
alias
"Isot" went to their house to pledge his pistol in the amount of
P500.00
to be spent for the wedding of his son.[4]
But his father declined as he had no money.[5]
Later, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, Jemuel accompanied his
father
to Saluyo's house. Appellants Jayson Berdin and Castro Calejanan were
there.[6]
After engaging in an hour of conversation with them, father and son
headed
home.[7]
Jemuel was walking ahead of his father. Unknown to them appellants
trailed
behind.[8]
When Jemuel turned around, he saw Calejanan holding his father's left
hand,
while Saluyo, his right hand.[9]
Frightened, Jemuel hid behind a tree 3 to 5 meters away.[10]
He saw Berdin hacking his father's head twice with a bolo.[11]
When his father was about to fall, Saluyo and Calejanan held him up.
Immediately,
Berdin grabbed, his father's head and then slashed his neck.[12]
The appellants looked for him but to no avail.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about the same
time,
Rudy Yamilo, then going to his neighbor's house at Sitio Puas Inda,
Barangay
Amas, Kidapawan, witnessed how the crime was committed.[14]
At a distance of 10 meters away, he sighted Berdin hacking the victim
with
a bolo, while Saluyo and Calejanan were holding his arms.[15]
Not long thereafter, the police arrived.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Roberto A.
Omandac,
Municipal Health Officer at Kidapawan, conducted a post mortem
examination
of the victim's body.[17]
On the witness stand, he confirmed his medico-legal findings[18]
stating that the victim suffered two (2) hack wounds on the head, one
11-inch
long, 3-inch deep hack wound on the right forehead extending to the
right
ear and another 5-inch long hack wound on the upper right portion of
the
head. He further testified that the cause of death of the victim was an
8½-inch long hack wound on the neck severing the windpipe and
major
blood vessels.[19]
For their part,
appellants
Saluyo and Calejanan denied the charge, maintaining they were both at
home
at Barangay Amas, Kidapawan when the incident transpired. According to
them, it was Berdin who killed the victim. In fact, he sought their
assistance
when he surrendered to the barangay captain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant
Calejanan
testified that on the night of June 10, 1997, Saluyo informed him that
his son-in-law, Berdin, was being assaulted by the victim.[20]
Soon thereafter, Berdin, accompanied by his wife, arrived and said, "Pa
nakapatay ko ug tawo kay gisulong ko" [Pa, (referring to Calejanan), I
killed a person because I was attacked]. Berdin requested Calejanan to
accompany him to the barangay captain because he will surrender.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Saluyo
testified
that in the evening of June 10, 1997, he distinctly heard the victim
shouting
outside the house of his godson Berdin,[22]
"Jayson, kanaog ka kay patyon ta ka" (Jayson, come down because I will
kill you). "Kay ikaw ang tig-report nga ako ang tig-pamutol og kahoy
dinhi"
(Because you are the one reporting that I am the one cutting trees
here).[23]
Saluyo peeped at a hole but failed to see anything because it was dark.[24]
Subsequently, Berdin went to his house saying, "Nong, ihatod ko sa
kapitan
kay mo-surrender ko" (Nong, bring me to the barangay captain because I
will surrender).[25]
Before proceeding to the barangay captain's place, they passed by the
house
of Calejanan, Berdin's father-in-law.[26]
Berdin voluntarily admitted to the barangay captain that he killed the
victim.[27]
Immediately, the barangay captain summoned the police to investigate.
The
police went to the crime scene. Upon their return, they asked him to
ride
in their jeep. Surprisingly, when they reached the barangay captain's
house,
the police confronted him saying, "Kining si Julian Mampo gitabangan
ninyo
kini" (This Julian Mampo, you helped one another in killing him).[28]
But he vehemently denied such imputation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Invoking the
justifying
circumstance of self-defense, appellant Berdin has a different version
of the incident. On June 10, 1997, at around 7:00 o'clock in the
evening,
he and his wife were awakened by the victim shouting, "Kanaug diha kay
ikaw diay ang nagsumbong nga ako ang nagpamutol sa kahoy" (Come down
because
you reported that I was the one cutting trees).[29]
When Berdin refused to come out of the house, the victim attempted to
gain
entry by destroying the door, hacking it several times with a bolo.[30]
Berdin then approached the victim calmly and persuaded him to discuss
their
differences. But the victim remained headstrong and threatened to kill
him.[31]
Instantaneously, the victim hacked Berdin twice with a bolo, but missed
him and hit the door instead.[32]
Berdin retaliated by hacking the victim twice with a bolo.[33]
Then the victim retreated momentarily but once again, he attacked
Berdin.[34]
At that moment, Berdin hit the victim at the neck causing the latter to
fall.[35]
After ascertaining that the latter was already dead, Berdin proceeded
to
the house of his godfather Saluyo and requested the latter to accompany
him to the barangay captain. Saluyo suggested that they first inform
Calejanan,
Berdin's father-in-law, before proceeding to the barangay captain.[36]
In the presence of the barangay captain, Berdin voluntarily admitted he
committed the crime. The barangay captain then summoned the police to
conduct
an investigation at the crime scenef.[37]
Upon their return, the police brought the three appellants to the
Kidapawan
Police Station.[38]
On January 15, 1999,
the
trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which,
reads:
"WHEREFORE,
prescinding from the foregoing facts and considerations, the Court
finds
accused Jayson Berdin, Castro Calejanan and Luciano Saluyo, guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal of the crime of Murder, hereby sentenced
accused Jayson Berdin, Castro Calejanan and Luciano Saluyo each to
suffer
the extreme penalty of death by lethal injection, and to indemnify the
heirs of Juliano Mampo the sum of P50,000.00.
"All of the
above-named
accused are ordered confined at the National Bureau of Prison, New
Bilibid
Prison, Muntinlupa City.
"IT IS SO ORDERED."[39]
In convicting the
appellants
of the crime of murder, the trial court held:
"In fine,
accused
Jayson Berdin is putting up a contrive defense of self-defense claiming
that on June 10, 1997 while he and his wife and his children were
sleeping,
he was awakened by the shout of Juliano Mampo challenging him to come
out
because the victim will kill him. The victim suspected accused Berdin
as
the one who reported that Mampo was responsible for cutting the trees.
That the victim destroyed his door hacked him with a bolo but accused
was
not hit because the bolo hit the door. Berdin retaliated by hacking the
victim twice and when the victim was outside the house near the door,
he
was again hacked for the third time hitting him on the neck and fell on
the ground. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds which negates
self-defense.
The manner in which the victim was killed was gory indicating criminal
instinct of the herein accused.
"Under the factual
setting
described above, can it be maintained that the accused was justified in
hacking Juliano Mampo to death?
"
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
"It appears from
the
accused's account that the victim challenged him to come out for he is
going to kill him for having reported that the victim was responsible
of
cutting trees. Once the victim was about to gain entrance to his house,
Juliano Mampo hacked him with a bolo and hit the door and Berdin
retaliated
by hacking Juliano Mampo 3 times. It is established that the bolo of
the
victim hit the door and Mampo moved downward at a distance of one
meter,
and at this instance the life of the accused was no longer in peril.
The
most logical option open to the accused is to inflict to the victim
such
injury that would prevent the victim from further harming him
(accused).
The victim Juliano Mampo sustained multiple hack wounds as shown in the
medico-legal report and therefore, self-defense is negated. Thus, the
Supreme
Court has ruled that 'If the accused stabbed the deceased merely to
defend
themselves, it certainly defines reason why they had to inflict sixteen
stab wounds on one and six on the other. The rule is settled that the
nature
and extent of the wounds inflicted on a victim negate accused's claim
of
self-defense' (People vs. Gregorio, 255 SCRA 380).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Conspiracy was
established
by the prosecution witnesses through the testimony of Joel Mampo and
Rudy
Yamilo that on June 10, 1997 Joel's father was followed by the three
accused
Jayson Berdin, Castro Calejanan and Luciano Saluyo, and once Juliano
Mampo
was overtaken by the accused Castro Calejanan, held the left hand of
the
victim, while Luciano Saluyo held the victim's right hand. Berdin
hacked
the victim's forehead, and when the victim fell on the ground Jayson
Berdin
slashed the throat of Juliano Mampo. 'Where the acts of the accused
collectively
and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards
the
accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiring in evident, and
regardless of the fact, the perpetrators will be liable as principals'
(People vs. Gregorio, 255 SCRA 380).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The Court finds
the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses straightforward, credible and
convincing,
no evidence was established by the defense that the witnesses are
motivated
by ulterior motive to implicate herein accused in the commission of
such
a heinous crime x x x.
"
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x"[40]
Appellants in their
brief
raised the following assignments of error:
"I
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"II
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO JAYSON BERDIN'S PLEA OF
SELF-DEFENSE.
"III
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED WAS ATTENDED
BY THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY."[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Solicitor General,
in the Appellee's Brief, contends that in invoking self-defense,
appellant
Berdin, in effect, admitted killing the victim and, therefore, the onus
probandi to show that his act is justified shifts to him. As such, even
if the prosecution's evidence is weak, it could not be readily
dismissed
considering that appellant had openly admitted his responsibility for
the
killing.[42]
Simply put, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on
the weakness of that of the prosecution. The Solicitor General further
contends that the nature, severity and number of wounds suffered by the
victim are totally inconsistent with Berdin's plea of self-defense. The
Solicitor General agrees with the trial court that all the appellants
conspired
with each other in killing the victim; and that the aggravating
circumstance
of treachery attended the commission of the crime considering that the
assault was sudden and without slightest provocation on the part of the
victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Assuming that appellant
Berdin acted alone in committing the crime, let us examine the evidence
to determine whether he acted in self-defense. Jurisprudence abounds
that
"where self-defense is invoked, it is incumbent upon the accused to
prove
by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he is not the unlawful
aggressor;
(2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and (3) he
employed
reasonable means to prevent and repel an aggression. On automatic
review,
the burden becomes even more difficult as appellant must show that the
court below committed a palpable error in appreciating the evidence.[43]
Appellant Berdin miserably
failed to discharge the burden. To reinforce his testimony that it was
the victim who was the unlawful aggressor, he called our attention to
the
testimony of appellant Saluyo, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"ATTY. DANO:
Q At around 10:00
o'clock
in the evening of June 10, 1997, can you recall of any unusual incident?
A I could recall,
sir.
Q What was that
incident?
A Shout.
Q Where was that
shout
that you heard that night of June 10, 1997 come from?
A The shout came
from
the yard of Jayson Berdin.
Q Do you know who
was
that person shouting?
A Yes, I know, sir.
Q Who was that
person
shouting?
A I know it was
Juliano
Mampo and I was certain because he is a native.
Q Now, will you
please
declare to this Court what you have heard from the mouth of Juliano
Mampo?
A The shout is
like
this sir, 'Jayson, kanaog ka kay patyon ta ka' meaning, 'Jayson, come
down
because I will kill you.'
Q What else have
your
heard?
A 'Kay ikaw ang
tig-report
nga ako ang tig-pamutol og kahoy dinhi' meaning, 'Because you are the
one
reporting that I am the one cutting trees here.'chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Upon hearing
that,
what did you do?
A I peeped in the
hole.
Q Did you see
anything
outside?
A I saw nothing
because
it was dark.
Q Because you have
not
seen anything outside and because it was dark, what did you do?
A I was just
inside
my house.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Q Then what else
can
you recall after the shouting stopped?
A Berdin came to
me.
Q Then what
transpired
when Berdin approached you in your house?
A He said, 'Nong
ihatod
ko sa kapitan kay mo surrender ko,' meaning, 'Nong, bring me to the
Barangay
Captain because I will surrender.'
Q Did he tell you
also
why he is surrendering to the Barangay Captain?
A He told me.
Q What was the
reason
why he surrendered to the Barangay Captain?
A According to him
'nakapatay
ako,' meaning, 'I killed somebody.'
Q Who was that
person
he killed?
A According to him
he
killed Julian Mampo."[44]
Saluyo merely testified
that he heard the victim threatening to kill Berdin. However, when he
tried
to take a look, he failed to see anything because it was dark. Verily,
Saluyo failed to prove that the victim was the unlawful aggressor.
Instead
of fortifying Berdin's defense, he virtually affirmed its weakness.
In Abrazaldo, we held
that "the plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where
it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but in
itself is extremely doubtful."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Berdin's testimony is
dubious. He testified that when the victim was hacking their door to
gain
entry, he still attempted to talk to him in order to thresh out their
differences.
If indeed his life was in peril, he could not have acted calmly.
Uppermost
in his mind at that time must have been the fact that his life was in
danger
and that to save himself, he had to do something to stop the
aggression.
To be sure, it was imperative for him to act on the spot.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As aptly observed by
the Solicitor General, the nature, character, location and extent of
the
victim's wounds clearly contradict Berdin's plea of self-defense, thus:
"The nature
and the number of wounds inflicted by an assailant are constantly and
unremittingly
considered important indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense
(People
vs. Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The victim
suffered
two hack wounds on the forehead and one slash wound on the neck. One
hack
wound on the forehead measured 11 inches long, extending from the right
portion of the forehead to the right ear, and 3 inches deep. The
anterior
neck was sliced from almost end to end, severing the windpipe. With the
location and severity of these wounds, it is almost as if the victim
was
a sitting duck, affording the accused-appellants the full opportunity
to
strike him at the most vital parts of his body. The presence of
numerous
serious wounds on the victim, their nature and location disprove
self-defense
and instead show a single-minded effort to kill the victim."[46]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the criminal
liability
of appellants Saluyo and Calejanan, suffice it to state that their
version
must necessarily fail. It bears emphasis that the prosecution witnesses
positively identified, not only Berdin, but also both of them as the
assailants.
Thus, their defenses of denial and alibi cannot be sustained.
Time and again, we ruled
that the positive identification of the appellants, when categorical
and
consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses
testifying
on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. Unless substantiated by
clear and convincing proof, which is not present in this case, such
defenses
are negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[47]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find no reason to
disturb the trial court's reliance on the testimonies of eyewitnesses
Jemuel
Mampo and Rudy Yamilo. It is well settled that the credibility of
witnesses
and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court
because
of its unique opportunity to observe their firsthand account and to
note
their demeanor, conduct and attitude. To be sure, the trial court has
the
advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators
of
truthfulness or falsehood.[48]
Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive
on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight
and
substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[49]
This exception has not been shown in the case at bar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the trial
court that all the appellants conspired to kill the victim, Juliano
Mampo.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[50]
The existence of conspiracy may be logically inferred and proved
through
acts of the accused that point to a common purpose, a concert of
action,
and a community of interest.[51]
With the existence of conspiracy, it is no longer necessary to
determine
who among the malefactors rendered the fatal blow.[52]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jemuel, the victim's
son, testified that while Calejanan and Saluyo were holding his
father's
hands, Berdin hacked his head twice with a bolo. And when his father
was
about to fall, Calejanan and Saluyo held him up and immediately Berdin
grabbed his head and slashed his neck.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under the above circumstances,
it is evident that Saluyo and Calejanan acted in unison with Berdin to
commit the crime. Evidently, they were of one mind, not only in
attacking
the victim, but also in the manner in which the attack was
accomplished.
Their actions implicitly showed unity of purpose — a concerted effort
to
kill the victim. And although there was no proof of a previous
agreement
among them to commit the crime, conspiracy was evident from the manner
of its perpetration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum, the trial court
correctly held that appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the
crime of murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The only remaining issue
is whether the crime was attended by aggravating circumstances.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
held that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery. There is
treachery when the offender commits a crime 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
any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[53]
Two essential elements must concur:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) the
employment
of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retaliate; and
(b) the said means
of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[54]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Here, treachery was
shown
when the victim was attacked from behind. The sudden and unexpected
assault
without provocation on the part of the victim, who did not know he was
being followed clandestinely by appellants, and without the slightest
inkling
of the fate that would befall him, placed him in a position where he
could
not effectively defend himself.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Obviously, the manner
of killing was deliberately adopted. It bears reiterating that
Calejanan
and Saluyo held the victim's hands when Berdin hacked his head twice
with
a bolo. And when the victim was about to fall, again Calejanan and
Saluyo
held him. At once, Berdin grabbed the victim's head and slashed his
neck.
There is treachery when the attack is sudden and unexpected, rendering
the victim unable to defend himself.[55]
Treachery, being attendant in the slaying of the victim qualifies the
crime
into murder.[56]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the prosecution failed to prove any other aggravating circumstance that
warrants the imposition of the death penalty. Hence, the appropriate
imposable
penalty is the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to
Article
63(2) of the same Code.[57]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Regarding damages, we
have held that when death occurs as a result of a crime, each appellant
should be ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity,
without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[58]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Temperate damages, in
lieu of actual damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with
certainty,[59]
as in this case. In People vs. Abrazaldo,[60]
we computed temperate damages at P25,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to moral damages,
we award the victim's heirs the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[61]
For verily, moral damages are not intended to enrich the victim's
heirs;
rather they are awarded to allow them to obtain means for diversion
that
could serve to alleviate their moral and psychological sufferings.[62]
Here, the victim's son unequivocally described how his family suffered
wounded feelings for the death of his father.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the award for
exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the Civil
Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be
imposed
only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances.
In People vs. Catubig,[63]
we held that exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 are
recoverable
if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or
ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[64]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, in
Criminal
Case No. 67-97 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that
appellants
JAYSON BERDIN, CASTRO CALEJANAN and LUCIANO SALUYO are sentenced to
suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and ordered to pay, jointly and
severally,
the victim's heirs (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as
moral damages; and (c) P25,000.00, as temperate damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano, Rollo at 17–26.
[2]
Rollo at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated August 15, 1997 at 4;
Records
at 34.
[4]
Id. at 5; Records at 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 7; Records at 37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 5; Records at 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 6–7; Records at 36–37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 7; Records at 37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 7–8; Records at 37–38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 9; Records at 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 8; Records at 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 9; Records at 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN dated September 30, 1997 at 3; Records at 74.
[15]
Id. at 4–5; Records at 75–76.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at 14; Records at 85.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN dated October 29, 1997 at 4–5; Records at 120–121.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Exhibit "D", Records at 161; TSN dated October 29, 1997 at 5, Records
at
121.
[19]
TSN dated October 29, 1997 at 6, 9–10; Records at 122, 125–126.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN dated February 25, 1998 at 6–7; Records at 194–195.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 8; Records at 196.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN dated May 14, 1998 at 4–5; Records at 223–224.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 5; Records at 224.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 5–6; Records at 224–225.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Id. at 6; Records at 225.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
TSN dated October 6, 1998 at 8–9; Records at 321–322.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 9–10; Records at 322–323.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id. at 11; Records at 324.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Id. at 12–13; Records at 325–326.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Id. at 13; Records at 326.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Id. at 14; Records at 327.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Id. at 15; Records at 328.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Id. at 17–18; Records at 330–331.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Id. at 19; Records at 332.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Id. at 20; Records at 333.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Rollo at 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Id. at 24–26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
Id. at 39–40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Carlos Arcona y Moban vs. The Court of Appeals and People, G.R. No.
134784,
December 9, 2002.
[43]
See People vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
TSN dated May 14, 1998 at 4–6; Records at 223–225.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
See People vs. Arellano, 54 O.G. 7252.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Rollo at 80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People vs. Raquim Pinuela, G.R. Nos. 140727-28, January 31, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
People vs. Abrazaldo, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People vs. Dulot, G.R. No. 137770, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 591.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
People vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 124892, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 537.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
People vs. Bolivar, G.R. No. 130597, February 21, 2001, 352 SCRA 438.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA 679.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
People vs. Basadre, G.R. No. 131851, February 22, 2001, 352 SCRA 573.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
People vs. Baltazar, G.R. No. 129933, February 26, 2001, 352 SCRA 678.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
"Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all
cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall
be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the deed.chan
robles
"In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible
penalties the following rules shall be observed in the application
thereof:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in
the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
x x
x
x x
x
x x x "chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
People vs. Joey Manlansing y Ambrosio and Mario Manlansing y Ambrosio,
G.R. Nos. 131736-37, March 11, 2002, 378 SCRA 685.
[59]
People vs. Solamillo, G.R. No. 126131, June 17, 2003 at 23, citing
People
vs. De la Tongga, G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA 687, 700.
[60]
G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
People vs. Solamillo, supra at 24, citing People vs. Marquez, G.R. No.
136736, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 561; People vs. Yatco, G.R. No.
138388,
March 19, 2002, 379 SCRA 432; People vs. Matic, G.R. No. 133650,
February
19, 2002, 377 SCRA 314.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
People vs. Pacina, G.R. No. 123150, August 16, 2000, 338 SCRA 195,
215–216.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
People vs. Samson, G.R. No. 124666, February 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |