SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
148627
April 28, 2004
-versus-
JENELITO IBAÑEZ
ALIAS "JEN,"
JOVY IBAÑEZ,
DANILO IBAÑEZ ALIAS "TABUNO,"AND FERNANDO
DELA
PAZ ALIAS "NENE CALVO,"
Appellants.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
If it were not so lamentable,
the situation would be considered beyond absurd. Belardo Pagapulan lost
his life because of an altercation over a fighting cock. It is shocking
to what depths the premium placed on human life has plummeted.
Before us is an appeal
filed by appellants Jenelito Ibanez and Danilo Ibanez of the decision
of
the lower court finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime
of murder. Earlier, the two appellants and two other accused, Jovy
Ibanez
and Fernando dela Paz alias "Nene Calvo,[1]
were charged for the murder of Belardo Pagapulan. The Information[2]
against them reads, viz:chanrobles virtual law library
That on or about the
10th day of December, 1991, in the evening, at Barangay Ocayan, in the
Municipality of Bataraza, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
evident premeditation and treachery, while armed with bladed weapon and
with intent to kill, and by means of superior strength, did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one
Belardo
Pagapulan, hitting him in the various vital parts of his body and
inflicting
upon him mortal injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of
his
instantaneous death.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.chanrobles virtual law library
The cases against accused
Jovy Ibañez and Fernando de la Paz were archived as they
continue
to remain at large. Trial ensued in the cases against appellants.cralaw:red
During the trial, the
prosecution presented as its first witness Cristeta Garceniego, 29
years
old, married, and daughter of the victim Belardo Pagapulan. Cristeta
testified
that on 10 December 1991, at about 7:00 pm, she was with her five
little
children in their her house in Ocayan, Bataraza, Palawan. Her father,
Belardo
came to stayand stayed with them while as Cristeta’s husband was away
at
Wescom undergoing training as a CAFGU.[3]
As they were eating their dinner, they heard some persons approaching
their
house. Some 250 meters away, these persons started bellowing in
Ilonggo,
"Patyon namon ang Tatay mo."[4]
(Meaning, "We will kill your Father.") Cristeta bade her father to hide
under the house.[5]
Under the light of the moon, Cristeta identified the persons making the
threat as appellant Jenelito Ibañez, appellant Danilo
Ibañez,
accused Jovy Ibañez, and accused Fernando dela Paz. She was very
familiar with all of them, as they were her neighbors and they
frequently
came and ate at her house.[6]
Appellant Danilo hurled objects at their house and ordered Belardo to
come
down. His companions, who were standing beside him, threatened to go up
the stairs of the house and shoot Belardo if he did not come down.
Cristeta
stood at the door of the house,[7]
around 1 ½ armslength away from the four assailants.[8]
She asked them why they were looking for her father when he did not do
anything to them, and informed them that they were trespassing.[9]
Still, they insisted that Belardo come out of the house. Belardo went
out,
stood about an arms-length away from the four men, and asked them what
they wanted. The four assailants, all carrying bolos, encircled the
victim.
Appellant Jenelito IbañezJen positioned himself at Belardo’s
back
and immediately hacked him from behind. Appellant Danilo Tabuno
followed
suit, then the other two assailants also hacked at the victim. Cristeta
continuously shouted "Tulungan ninyo ako para maawat sila." Belardo
fell
to the ground, but the four men continued hacking him. After they left,
Cristeta approached her father and ascertained that he was dead. He had
sustained twenty-four (24) hackwounds and some small wounds on his arms.[10]
She ran across the road to her godfather’s house. He met her and
assisted
her in shouting for help. Some people came, looked at Belardo’s dead
body,
and reported the incident at the police station in Rio Tuba. The next
morning,
policeman Arthur Casiple came and examined the body. Upon their
request,
a certain Mr. Bardago took four pictures[11]
of her father. Casiple told Cristeta that there was no doctor available
to conduct the autopsy of the body. As two days had already passed by
then,
and , and Belardo’s body remained unembalmed,. Cristeta was advised to
bury him.[12]
She surmises that the four accused slew her father because they were
the
culprits fingered for the loss of Belardo’s fighting cock which they
had
allegedly loosened. The cock was later found at a neighbor’s house.chanrobles virtual law library
Finally, she testified
that at the time of her father’s death, he was 48 years old, and he
earned
his living by farming and harvesting corn and selling the fighting
cocks
he raised. He had net earnings of P10,000.00 per year from the corn and
P50,000.00 from the fighting cocks.[13]
Aside from the loss of Pagapulan’s prospective income, she and her
three
brothers suffered hurt feelings and grief because of the violent and
untimely
demise of their father.[14]
As its second witness,
the prosecution presented Police Investigator Arturo P. Casiple.
Casiple
testified that in the morning of 11 December 1991, he received a report
from the Marine Detachment in Rio Tuba regarding a killing in Barangay
Ocayan, Bataraza, Palawan. He proceeded to the crime scene, and saw the
victim lying on the ground, having, more or less twenty hack wounds[15]
on different parts of his body. The victim was identified as Belardo
Pagapulan.
To record the wounds and the fact of death, pictures were taken of the
cadaver.[16]
Casiple requested an autopsy be conducted by the Rural Health Officer
D.
Gasparel. However, the said doctor was in Manila at the time. Next, he
requested that an autopsy be conducted by any doctor at the Brooke’s
Point
District Hospital, but the doctors were all busy with a surgical
operation.
Thus, no autopsy was conducted, and no physician examined the corpse
before
it was buried. Neither was the body exhumed later for examination, as
the
trial court did not give any order for such.[17]
On 13 December 1991, Casiple took down Cristeta’s statement as the sole
eyewitness to the crime.[18]
The parties agreed to
stipulate that Belardo Pagapulan’s death was not registered with the
Local
Civil Registrar’s Office, as Cristeta had been told there would be
registration
only after an autopsy of the body had been conducted.[19]chanrobles virtual law library
In his defense, Appellant
Jenelito Ibañez testified that on 10 December 1991, at around
6:30
to 7:00 p.m., he was going home after plowing a farm lot located around
3 kilometers away. He had with him his bolo, an implement in his work.
When he reached the road near the house of Belardo Pagapulan, he was
suddenly
hacked by Pagapulan.[20]
He was hit on the right side of his face.[21]
Appellant stepped backward, but again, Pagapulan hacked him on his
right
shoulder bone. Appellant fought back, and was subsequently hit twice by
Pagapulan, inflicting one wound on the left side portion near his
armpit,
and another on the second finger(sic) of his foot.[22]
Using his bolo, appellant parried blows from the bolo of Pagapulan many
times.[23]
He later received medical treatment at a hospital in Brooke’s Point.[24]
Appellant avers that
he had no misunderstanding with the victim to warrant Pagapulan’s
sudden
attack on him. However, he supposes the reason for the unprovoked
assault
was his cousin, accused Fernando de la Paz’ conflict with Pagapulan
Belardo
regarding their "parawakans" or fighting cocks. He narrated that on 5
December
1991,[25]
while he was ten armslength away from his house, he saw accused De la
Paz
having a heated argument with Pagapulan on the road, 25-30 meters away
from Pagapulan’s house.[26]
Immediately after, accused De la Paz informed appellant that Pagapulan
was accusing them of letting their fighting cock roam around freely,
thus
allowing it to wander near Pagapulan’s house and fight with his own
parawakan.[27]chanrobles virtual law library
For his part, appellant
Danilo Ibañez foisted the defense of denial and alibi. He
testified
that on the evening of 10 December 1991, he was at his home in Barangay
Ocayan. With him were accused Jovy Ibañez and accused De la Paz.
They were resting while listening to the radio. Appellant Jenelito
Ibañez
arrived, with wounds on his right cheek and on his right shoulder. He
was
weak from loss of blood. They immediately brought him for first-aid
treatment
to Barangay Captain Flora Ordillas at her house in Barangay Gangud,
Bataraza.
Appellant Jenelito Ibañez told them that at around 10 p.m., near
his house (Pagapulan’s),[28]
Pagapulan hacked him[29]
because he was angry at accused Dela Paz. He fought back, and they
hacked
at each other.[30]
Appellant Danilo Ibañez denied he had any first-hand knowledge
of
the killing of Pagapulan and claimed that he was only implicated by the
children of Pagapulan after his brother had been charged with the
commission
of the crime.[31]
Unpersuaded by the appellants’
defense, on 8 December 2000, the trial court rendered judgment, the
dispositive
portion[32]
whereof reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding both accused Jenelito
Ibanez
and Danilo Ibanez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the
crime
of murder and are hereby sentenced to pay the heirs of Belardo
Pagapulan
the following:
1. Civil
indemnity
P 50,000.00
2. Actual and
compensatory
damages P 10,000.00
3. Moral damages
P100,000.00
4. Loss of earning
capacity P630,000.00
5. The costs of suit
It appearing from the
records
of the case that both accused Jenelito Ibañez and Danilo
Ibañez
were detained since February 3, 1994, the period of their preventive
imprisonment
shall be credited in the imposition of the penalty which is Reclusion
Perpetua
or forty (40) years imprisonment.
The case as against
co-accused Jovy Ibañez and Fernando dela Paz alias "Nene Clavo"
who are both at-large is ordered archived, to be reinstated upon their
arrest or voluntary surrender. The alias warrant of arrest previously
issued
last January 18, 1996 is hereby reiterated.cralaw:red
In their Brief,[33]
appellants assigned two errors to the decision of the trial court, viz:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THE KILLING OF THE DECEASED WAS ATTENDED BY TREACHERY.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN CONVICTING APPELLANT DANILO IBAÑEZ NOTWITHSTANDING THAT
NEITHER
HIS IDENTITY NOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE KILLING OF THE DECEASED WAS
ESTABLISHED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE UNCORROBORATED AND BIASED TESTIMONY OF
THE
VICTIM’S OWN DAUGHTER. chan
robles virtual law library
Appellants assailed
the judgment of the trial court on several grounds. First, they allege
that there was no treachery attendant to the killing of Pagapulan. On
the
occasion of that fateful day when Pagapulan was confronted by the
appellants
and the other accused, he did not run away but chose to approach them.
Pagapulan even took off his white shirt when he purportedly went down
to
hide under the house. In the minds of the appellants, this should be
seen
by the Court as a "recognized local fact"[34]
indicative that Pagapulan was readying himself to fight the appellants.
The victim was therefore not caught unaware and unable to defend
himself,
and instead of being cautious, chose to be courageous. On the other
hand,
the plaintiff-appellee contends that the trial court properly
appreciated
the existence of treachery. The attack on Pagapulan had been executed
in
such a manner so as to make it impossible for him to retaliate. The
appellants
deliberately resorted to the use of superior strength, by employing
their
superiority in number and in the bolos they used as weapons against the
unarmed victim. According to the appellee, there being abuse of
superior
strength, there must be treachery as the former circumstance is
absorbed
in the latter.[35]
The Court sustains the
argument of the appellants that no treachery attended the killing of
Pagapulan.
Contrary to the asseverations of the appellee, we must distinguish the
existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery from abuse of
superior
strength. Although treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength when
both
are attendant to the crime committed, the presence of one of these
circumstances
does not necessarily automatically result in the presence of the other.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by
aggressors
on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to
defend
himself, thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressors.[36]
In the case at bar, the victim Pagapulan had sufficient warning of the
appellants’ nefarious intentions against him. Even before they reached
Cristeta’s house, they had already been bellowing their threats to kill
him. Perhaps out of concern for his daughter and grandchildren,
Pagapulan
chose to stay and hide, instead of fleeing. Later, when the aggressors
were threatening to climb the stairs into the house to ferret him out,
it was also his choice to face them unarmed. Whether or not he removed
his white shirt to prepare himself to fight the appellants is no longer
of any significance at this point, as what is important is that he had
sufficient warning of the threat to his life. Even if the first blow
was
landed from behind him by appellant Jenelito Ibañez, Pagapulan
was
fully cognizant that he and the others were encircling him to attack.
There
was no treachery involved.cralaw:red
There was, however,
abuse of superior strength through superiority in the number of the
aggressors
and in the weapons they used against the victim. Abuse of superior
strength
is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between
the
victim and the aggressors, assuming a situation of superiority of
strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage
of by him in the commission of the crime.[37]
It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that this qualifying
circumstance was consciously sought by the assailants.[38]
Four men to one, the appellants outnumbered the victim. All armed with
bolos, they ganged up on the unarmed Pagapulan. The appellants’ actions
clearly show that they consciously sought to overwhelm the victim by
their
superiority in number. This was illuminated in the testimony of
Cristeta
Garceniego, the lone eyewitness:
Q. You said that your
father went out and faced the four in (sic) a distance of one meter and
asked why and he was immediately hacked, who first hacked?
A. Jen Ibañez
Sir and followed by Tabuno Ibañez.chanrobles virtual law library
Q. How about the two
others, what did they do?
A. They helped one another
in hacking my father.cralaw:red
Q. The first time your
father was hacked, where was your father hit?
A. At his back.cralaw:red
Q. When your father
went out and faced the four, how was he hacked from the back?
A. He was hacked at
the back because the four encircled my father and Jenelito
Ibañez
situated himself behind my father who hacked my father first.cralaw:red
Q. You said after Jenelito
Ibañez hacked your father at the back Tabuno Ibañez
likewise
hacked your father and the four hacked-helped one another in hacking
your
father, what instrument did they use in hacking your father?chanrobles virtual law library
A. Bolo, Sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q. How many of the four
have bolos?
A. Four of them have
bolos.cralaw:red
x x x
Q. When the four helped
one another in hacking your father when they were able to encircle him,
what happened to your father?
A. He fell to the ground,
Sir.cralaw:red
Q. When your father
fell to the ground, what did the four do?
A. They still kept on
hacking him.[39]chanrobles virtual law library
Anent the second error
assigned to the decision of the trial court, appellants claim that the
lower court erred in convicting appellant Danilo Ibañez
notwithstanding
that neither his identity nor his participation in the killing of
Pagapulan
was established beyond reasonable doubt by the uncorroborated and
biased
testimony of Cristeta, the victim’s daughter. Appellant Danilo
Ibañez
avers he did not kill Pagapulan, as on that night, he was home with his
brothers and cousin, resting and listening to the radio, after making
sawali
shingles all day.[40]
He claims that his conviction was a mistake, as the sole basis for such
was Cristeta’s testimony that he was one of the assailants who killed
her
father. As a daughter of the victim, her testimony could not be as
unbiased
as a disinterested witness, and she could only be expected to
strengthen,
and not weaken the evidence against the appellants. Moreover, her
testimony
should be suspect as it had already been shown to be flawed with regard
to the hackwounds sustained by the victim at his back. She testified on
these wounds while in the witness stand, but never stated them in the
sworn
affidavit she executed 3 days after the killing before the policeman
Casiple.
The photographs[41]
presented by the prosecution as proof of the victim’s injuries never
showed
any part of Pagapulan’s back sustaining hack wounds. Finally, appellant
avers it would have been very difficult for Cristeta to identify the
appellant
as she depended only on the illumination of a setting half moon, and
Pagapulan’s
attackers had their backs to her.[42]
We are unconvinced by
appellant’s arguments. Alibi is one of the weakest, if not the weakest,
of defenses in criminal prosecution because it is easy to fabricate and
difficult to disprove. The appellants' barefaced denial of the crime
charged
cannot prevail over the straightforward, positive and spontaneous
testimony[43]
of Cristeta. Cristeta’s testimony is worthy of full credence. When she
executed the sworn affidavit before Casiple, she unequivocally stated
how
appellant Danilo Ibañez, also known as "Tabuno Ibañez,"
had
participated in the crime:chanrobles virtual law library
-05. Noong petsa 10
ng Disyembre 1991 humigit kumulang alas 7:00 ng gabi sila Jane (sic)
Ibañez,
Alias Tabuno Ibañez, Juvy Ibañez at Alias Nene Calvo ay
pumunta
sa bahay at pagkatapos ay hinagis nila ang aming bahay ng kaputol na
kahoy
at sumigaw na pababain ang aking tatay na si Belardo Pagapulan dahil
papatayin
raw nila…sabi ni Alias Tabuno Ibañez na ilawan mo para makita
namin
ang iyong tatay at sumigaw muli si Alias Tabuno Ibañez na "Nong"
akyatin na natin at doon na natin tadtarin sa itaas ng bahay nila…at
tinaga
nila agad…at pinagtataga pa nila ng husto.[44]
At no time during the
course of the trial did Cristeta’s testimony regarding the complicity
of
appellant Danilo Ibañez ever change. From the onset, Cristeta
had
testified that appellant Danilo Ibañez was one of the four men
who
threw objects at her house and demanded for her father to go down.[45]
When she went out of their house, she saw the men making the commotion,
and clearly identified appellant Danilo Ibañez among them.[46]
Aided by the light of the moon and standing barely 2 meters away, she
identified
him and recognized his voice easily, as he was familiar to her. She
knew
him and the other three aggressors as neighbors who frequently came and
ate at her house.[47]
She unequivocally testified that appellant Danilo Ibañez was the
second man to hack her father after appellant Jenelito.[48]
An eyewitness account, coupled with the fact of the victim’s death, are
sufficient proof of the guilt of the appellant beyond cavil of doubt,
for
the crime of murder.[49]
Despite the appellants’
efforts to the contrary, Cristeta’s testimony remains unimpinged and
deserving
of full faith and credit, even with regard to the existence of back
hackwounds
on the victim. She had testified that appellant Jenelito Ibañez
inflicted the first hackwound upon her father’s back.[50]
Her testimony had been fully corroborated by the police investigator
Casiple,
and he satisfactorily explained the inadvertence to take pictures of
these
back hackwounds:
Q. These four pictures
that you identified, the front part of the body is shown in the
pictures.
Now, since your purpose in having the pictures taken was to capture the
image and present the pictures of the body of the deceased with the
wound,
and since these pictures are all frontal pictures, may I conclude that
there was no wound at the back of the deceased?
A. There were multiple
wounds at the back but the photographer did not take them anymore.cralaw:red
Q. Mr. Witness, the
photographer who was under your direction and control, under your
instruction,
failed to take pictures of the back of the deceased?
A. That was my instruction,
but some other wounds were not taken. I forgot to instruct the
photographer
to take pictures of all wounds of the victim.cralaw:red
Q. Mr. Witness, so you
are telling us that the failure to present pictures of the wounds at
the
back of the deceased was because you forgot to instruct the
photographer
to do that?chanrobles virtual law library
A. Yes, sir.[51]
It is of no moment that
in her sworn affidavit,[52]
she omitted to mention the hackwounds which her father sustained at his
back. Ex parte affidavits, which are often incomplete and inaccurate,
need
not prevail over credible statements of a witness on the stand,
particularly
when the defense had the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness,[53]
such as in the case at bar. Moreover, even if she was a daughter of the
victim, it does not follow that her testimony was biased. The trial
court,
having had the opportunity to observe the mien of the all the witnesses
presented by the prosecution and the defense, chose to believe
Cristeta’s
testimony over that of the appellants’. The unbending jurisprudence is
that findings of trial courts on the matter of credibility of the
witnesses
are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed
on appeal. The private complainant’s relationship with the victim does
not disqualify her from testifying in the criminal case involving her
relative
or automatically sully her testimony with the stain of bias.[54]
It would be unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse
someone
else other than the actual culprit himself. Nothing was shown to
indicate
in any way that the witness was impelled by improper motive in
testifying
against appellant.[55]
In fact, appellant Jenelito Ibañez testified that they had a
good
relationship with Cristeta.[56]
This underscores her credibility as a witness.chanrobles virtual law library
Appellants claim[57]
that Cristeta cannot identify her father’s attackers as they had their
backs to her. This is specious and misleading. As correctly stated by
the
plaintiff-appellee, she never testified that for the entirety of the
attack,
the four aggressors had their backs to her. During the
cross-examination
by counsel for the defense, she only stated that one or two of them
encircled
her father and had their backs to her.[58]
At this stage, she already knew the identities of the four malefactors,
as she had recognized and talked to them, even before they had seen or
attacked her father.[59]
Finally, appellants
aver that appellant Danilo Ibañez’ participation in the killing
of the deceased was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court
disagrees. As the lower court correctly held:
While it does not appear
from the evidence of the prosecution what particular wounds were
inflicted
by accused Jenelito and Danilo each of them shall be responsible for
the
wounds inflicted by the other accused because of the existence of
conspiracy
between the accused. It is well settled that when a conspiracy is
established,
the act of one becomes the act of all.cralaw:red
In the case at bar,
the conspiracy among the accused to kill the victim was clearly proven.
The mutual acts of both accused showed their unity of mind to kill the
victim. As shown by the evidence for the prosecution which this court
gives
credence, accused Jenelito and Danilo with two other companions armed
with
bolos went to the house of Belardo Pagapulan that particular evening
and
helped one another in hacking Belardo to death. Thus, from the
foregoing
evidence, it can be inferred that both accused Jenelito Ibañez
and
Danilo Ibañez have a unity of purpose, intent and sentiment in
the
commission of the crime against the victim Belardo Pagapulan.[60]chanrobles virtual law library
Conspiracy may be shown
through circumstantial evidence; deduced from the mode and manner in
which
the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused
pointing
to a joint purpose and design, a concerted action, and a community of
interest.[61]
In this case, the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to prove that
indeed the appellants killed Pagapulan. It does not matter who of the
two
appellants actually killed him. As correctly held by the trial court,
the
appellants conspired to kill Pagapulan. The act of one is the act of
both.[62]
All these points inescapably
converge at the nexus that appellant Danilo Ibañez was at the
crime
scene and was a direct participant in killing Belardo Pagapulan.
Appellant
Danilo Ibanez’ defenses of denial and alibi did not bear up against the
evidence presented by the prosecution to prove his contumacy.cralaw:red
While the Court sustains
the appellants’ argument that there was no treachery in the killing of
Bernardo Pagapulan, the Court must deny appellant’s second prayer that
the killing be adjudged as simple and plain homicide. Since the
aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly alleged in the
Information against appellants, the dearth left by the absence of
treachery
has been filled, thus qualifying the crime to murder. Article 248(1) of
the RPC, as amended, penalizes a person who commits the crime of murder
attended by the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior
strength, with reclusion perpetua to death. There being no generic
aggravating
circumstance attendant, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should
be imposed.[63]
We therefore maintain the penalty imposed by the trial court on
appellants.chanrobles virtual law library
We now review the award
of damages.cralaw:red
The award of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity ex delicto is proper. No other proof is needed for
such
other than the death of the victim.[64]
We cannot, however,
sustain the lower court’s decision to award actual and compensatory
damages
of P10,000.00. For actual damages to be awarded, the amount of loss
must
be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, based upon competent
proof
and the best evidence obtainable to the injured party.[65]
The prosecution never presented any receipt to substantiate Cristeta
Garceniego’s
claim as to the amount she and her family spent for their father’s
funeral
expenses. However, we are cognizant of the fact that expenses were
indeed
incurred by the victim’s family. Thus, in lieu of actual damages, the
Court
orders appellants to pay the sum of P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
Temperate
damages may be awarded when the Court finds that some pecuniary loss
has
been suffered, but the actual amount cannot be established with
certainty.[66]chanrobles virtual law library
Cristeta Garceniego
had testified that she and her brothers had suffered emotionally
because
of the brutal death of their father. Thus, the award of P50,000.00 as
moral
damages is proper. The purpose of the award of moral damages is not to
enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for their wounded
feelings. A violent death brings about emotional pain and anguish to
the
victim’s family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain
and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal
killing.
For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of
any
proof of the heirs’ emotional suffering.[67]
Under Article 2206 of
the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for
loss
of earning capacity. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity
partakes
of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[68]
by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[69]
By way of exception, testimonial evidence may suffice if the victim was
either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under
current
labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
victim’s
line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as
a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor
laws.[70]
Cristeta testified that her father was self-employed and earned his
living
by harvesting corn twice a year for which he had a gross income of
P5,000
per harvest. He also sold around 100 fighting cocks a year, for which
he
received a minimum of P500.00 per cock net of expenses or a total
income
of P50,000.00.[71]
These statements remain unchallenged and uncontroverted by the
appellants.
Thus, the Court affirms that Belardo Pagapulan’s gross annual income is
P60,000.00. In People vs. Napalit,[72]
we set the formula for computation of loss of earning capacity, thus:
Net earning capacity
– 2/3 x (80 - age of the victim at the time of his death) x a
reasonable
portion of the annual net income which would have been received by the
heirs for supportchanrobles virtual law library
In the absence of proof
of living expenses, the net income is deemed to be 50% of the gross
income.[73]
As Belardo Pagapulan was 48 years old at the time of his death,[74]
the correct amount to compensate for the loss of his earning capacity
is
P640,000.00 (2/3 x [80-48] x [P60,000.00-P30,000.00]).chanrobles virtual law library
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and
Puerto
Princesa City in Criminal Case No. 10985 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
Appellants JENELITO IBAÑEZ and DANILO IBAÑEZ are found
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua. They are ordered to pay to the heirs of the victim Belardo
Pagapulan,
the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; P25,000.00 as
temperate damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and P640,000.00 for loss of earning capacity. Costs against
the
appellants.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Jenelito, Jovy and Danilo Ibañez are brothers. Fernando dela Paz
is their first cousin.
[2]
Original Records, pp. 1-2.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
TSN, 16 April 1996, p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 10.
[6]
Id. at 12.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Id. at 17.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D".chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
TSN, 16 April 1996, p. 18.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id. at 19-21.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
TSN, 16 April 1996, p. 22.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
TSN, 9 September 1996, p. 84.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D".chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
TSN, 9 September 1996, pp. 4-5.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Id. at 5-6.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
TSN, 1 July 1998, pp. 5-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Id. at 9-11.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Id. at 11-12.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
TSN, 1 July 1998, p. 23.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
Id. at 16.chanrobles virtual law library
[26]
Id. at 12-13.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Id. at 14-15.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
TSN, 18 March 1999, pp. 4-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Rollo, p. 28.chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
Id. at 55-66.chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
Id. at 58.chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
Id. at 86-88.chanrobles virtual law library
[36]
People vs. Romero, et al., G.R. No. 145166, 8 October 2003; People vs.
Delada, Jr., G.R. No. 137406, 26 March 2003; People vs. Rubiso, G.R.
No.
128871, 18 March 2003.
[37]
People vs. Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314 (1995)chanrobles virtual law library
[38]
People vs. Casingal, 243 SCRA 37 (1995).chanrobles virtual law library
[39]
TSN, 16 April 1996, pp. 13-14.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
TSN, 18 March 1999, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[41]
Supra at 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[42]
TSN, 16 April 1996, pp. 60-66.chanrobles virtual law library
[43]
People v. Molina, 311 SCRA 517 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[44]
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Cristeta Garciniego, marked as Exhibit "E",
Original
Records, p. 69.
[45]
TSN, 16 April 1996, p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[46]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[47]
Id. at 12.chanrobles virtual law library
[48]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[49]
People vs. Gumayao, G.R. No. 138933, 28 October 2003; People v. Lotoc,
307 SCRA 471 (1999).
[50]
TSN, 16 April 1996, p. 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[51]
TSN, 9 September 1996, pp. 10-11.chanrobles virtual law library
[52]
Original Records, p. 69.chanrobles virtual law library
[53]
People vs. Cabasag, G.R. No. 140762, 10 September 2003.
[54]
Balunueco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126968, 9 April 2003.
[55]
Supra at 50.chanrobles virtual law library
[56]
TSN, 2 July 1998, p.2.chanrobles virtual law library
[57]
Rollo, p. 65.chanrobles virtual law library
[58]
TSN, 16 April 1996, p. 32.chanrobles virtual law library
[59]
Id. at 9-12.chanrobles virtual law library
[60]
Decision, Rollo, p. 23.chanrobles virtual law library
[61]
People vs. Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 153781.chanrobles virtual law library
[62]
People v. Taliman, 342 SCRA 534 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[63]
Revised Penal Code, Article 63, paragraph 3.chanrobles virtual law library
[64]
People vs. Romero, et al., G.R. No. 145166, 8 October 2003; People vs.
Aliben, et al., G.R. No. 140404, 27 February 2003.
[65]
People vs. Almoguerra, et al., G.R. No. 121177; People vs. Solamillo,
G.R.
No. 126131, 17 June 2003.
[66]
People vs. de los Santos, G.R. 135919, 9 May 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[67]
People vs. Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, 18 March 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[68]
People vs. Panabang, G.R. Nos. 1137514-15, 16 January 2002; People vs.
De Vera, 312 SCRA 640, 670 (1999).
[69]
Chan vs. Maceda, Jr., G.R. No. 142591, 30 April 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[70]
People vs. Duban, G.R. No. 141217, 26 September 2003; People vs.
Mallari,
G.R. No. 145993, 17 June 2003; People vs. Caraig, G.R. Nos. 116224-27,
28 March 2003.
[71]
TSN, 16 April 1996, pp. 19-21.chanrobles virtual law library
[72]
G.R. Nos. 142919 and 143876, 4 February 2003.
[73]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[74]
Id. at 18. |