FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
148710
January 15, 2004
-versus-
JAIME BAÑO
ALIAS "JIMMY,"
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Jaime Baño and Virginia
Bolesa were married on 12 October 1992 at Bilabila, Sallapadan, Abra.[1]
Barely two months after their 4th wedding anniversary, or on 15
December
1996, Virginia was found dead, floating in a basin of water along the
river
bank of Abra River at Barangay Pagala, Bucay, Abra.[2]
Rumors immediately circulated that she drowned.[3]
A wake for five days
was held in the conjugal house of the Baños at Bucay, Abra.
After
which, Virginia was brought to her hometown in Bilabila, where her
mortal
remains were interred.[4]
It was known in both towns that Jaime did not attend the wake and
burial
of his wife. He was later hospitalized for drinking Vasedine, an
insecticide.[5]
On 19 March 1997, after it was found upon autopsy that Virginia did not
die of drowning, Jaime was charged with parricide in an information
docketed
as Criminal Case No. N-0133, which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about December
15, 1996, between 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock in the morning in the
Municipality
of Bucay, Province of Abra, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill and without
legal justification, while armed with a hard object, did then and
there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and maul his
legitimate
wife VIRGINIA BAÑO, thereby inflicting a depressed skull
fracture
on the left frontal area lateral to the midline of her head, which
caused
her instantaneous death.[6]
Jaime pleaded "not guilty"
to the charge upon his arraignment.[7]
At the trial, the prosecution presented evidence to establish his
guilt,
thus:
At around 9:00 p.m.
of 14 December 1996, Kagawad Raymund Marquez of Barangay Siblong,
Bucay,
Abra, saw Jaime Baño at the funeral wake of one Antonina Babida.
Jaime was very unruly while drinking liquor. He even challenged Raymund
to a fight, but the latter kept his cool and refused to be provoked. A
policeman even requested the people around to give money to Jaime to
induce
him to go home. As nobody did, the policeman gave Jaime P20. Jaime went
home with his mother at around 12:00 a.m. of 15 December 1996. A few
minutes
later, however, Jaime returned to the wake, looking for his wife. He
angrily
mentioned the name of his wife, Virginia Baño, three times, and
said: "Vulva of her mother. Where is that woman? I am very angry with
her
and if I will see her I will kill her." After that, Jaime walked
towards
the direction of his house.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about the same time
that Raymund was observing an unruly and drunk Jaime, Alicia Respicio
was
informing Soledad Piid that Virginia had a quarrel with Jaime that
night.
At Alicia’s house, Soledad saw Virginia crying with a reddish face,
which
she interpreted as the result of Jaime’s maltreatment. As Virginia was
their relative, Soledad and Alicia advised her to stay with Alicia for
the night. Soledad then returned to her house. By 11:00 p.m., however,
Alicia again reported to her that Virginia disregarded their advice
and,
instead, went home. However, another quarrel between Jaime and Virginia
ensued, with the former threatening the latter to kill her. Virginia
sought
again the refuge of Alicia’s house. Soledad and Alicia pleaded with
Virginia
to sleep in Alicia’s house. Virginia agreed.[9]
At about 2:00 a.m. of
15 December 1996, Alicia once more reported to Soledad that Virginia
was
not in her bed and left the door open. Very much worried, Soledad and
her
husband, Valentin, searched for Virginia. At around 3:00 a.m., while
they
were standing about seven meters away from the Baños’ house,
they
witnessed Jaime repeatedly box Virginia. They saw the mauling incident
through the window at the southwestern portion of the house. They even
overheard Virginia remark: "Ouch, why don’t you get tired of beating
me,
would it not be better if you just kill me." Upon observing, however,
that
the quarrel was apparently subsiding, Soledad and Valentin left.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Two and a half hours
later, Valentin related to Soledad that while plying his tricycle, he
heard
from the vegetable vendors that Virginia was found dead along the river
bank at Barangay Pagala. When Soledad went to see the body of Virginia,
she saw Jaime walking to and fro beside the cadaver, but not crying.
She
requested Jaime to change the clothes of his dead wife, but he did not
do or say anything. It was Soledad’s companions who changed Virginia’s
clothing.[11]
Dr. Rolex Gonzales,
Medical Officer III of the Abra Provincial Hospital, conducted an
autopsy
on Virginia’s cadaver. While he heard stories about the victim’s
drowning,
his examination revealed otherwise. He observed that the victim’s lungs
and stomach were devoid of water, fluid, or any debris or foreign
material,
thus negating the theory that she drowned. He noticed lacerations,
abrasions,
and hematoma on different parts of the victim’s body. He opined that
they
were probably inflicted with the use of a hard object on the early
morning
of 15 December 1996. The wound that caused a depressed portion on the
skull
caused the intracerebral hemorrhage, which resulted in the victim’s
death.[12]
Melecio Bolesa and Cristeta
Bolesa Maaño, Virginia’s brother and sister, respectively,
testified
having spent P30,710 relative to the death and burial of their sister.
Jaime did not share a single centavo in the expenses.[13]
Melecio recalled that Virginia would often go to Bilabila and complain
that Jaime would maltreat her whenever he was drunk and even make her
dance
naked.[14]
After the prosecution
rested its case, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence[15]
with prior leave of court on the ground that the prosecution failed to
present any eyewitness to the commission of the crime or circumstantial
evidence sufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In
an Order of 14 May 1998,[16]
the trial court denied the demurrer to evidence. The trial then
continued,
with the defense, through Jaime Baño and his mother, Linda
Baño,
proffering a different version of the events.cralaw:red
Jaime admitted to having
engaged in a drinking spree at the wake of Antonina Babida from 9:00
p.m.
to 12:00 midnight of 14 December 1996. There, he met his mother, who
was
selling balut. Since he was so drunk that he could no longer carry his
body, he just sat and slept beside her mother at the gate where the
wake
was being held. At 4:30 a.m. of the following day, his mother woke him
up, and they proceeded home.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jaime’s house was, however,
locked. He peeped through the window and called his wife. No answer
came.
Jaime, therefore, opted to go to his mother’s house, which was about a
hundred meters away. There, he slept only to be later awakened by his
mother
with the news that his wife drowned. He proceeded to the place where
the
body of his wife was found but met a police car along the way. He went
inside the police car, found and embraced the lifeless body of his
wife,
and cried. He did not see any laceration, abrasion, or contusion on her
body at the time. Jaime claimed that he could not have mauled, much
less
killed, his wife in their house on the early morning of 15 December
1996
because at the time he was still asleep beside his mother at the wake.
He did not attend his wife’s wake and funeral at Bilabila, for his
wife’s
family suspected that he was responsible for his wife’s death and
threatened
him not to go there.[18]
In its decision of 3
August 2000,[19]
the Regional Trial Court of Abra, Branch 58, convicted Jaime
Baño
of parricide for killing his legitimate wife, Virginia Bolesa
Baño,
anchored on circumstantial evidence, thus:
It is clear from the
facts established that on the night of December 14, 1996 the accused
JAIME
BAÑO was heavily drunk; that he maltreated his wife, and acted
violently
against her, prompting his wife Virginia to seek refuge in the house of
Alicia Respicio; that after midnight of December 14, 1996, Jaime
Baño
was angrily looking for his wife Virginia, that he threatened to kill
his
wife when he finds her, even in public which caught the attention of
Raymond
Marquez, Barangay Kagawad; that he was unruly, provoking and making
trouble;
that he denied his wife suffered physical violence as shown in the
physical
injuries of the cadaver, like lacerations, abrasions and hematoma on
her
face, a fractured skull; that he tried to poison and kill himself and
commit
suicide by drinking insecticide, and that he never attended the burial
of his wife at Bilabila, Sallapadan, Abra, for her final wake. This
chain
of events taken together points to no other than the accused JAIME
BAÑO
as the one who killed his wife Virginia Baño sometime after
midnight
of December 14, 1996.[20]
Accordingly, the trial
court sentenced Jaime to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
to
indemnify the family of Virginia Baño in the amounts of P100,000
as "civil indemnity for moral damages"; P40,000 for actual expenses;
and
the costs of the proceedings. Hence, this petition ascribing to the
trial
court grave error in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of parricide on the basis of circumstantial evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of his lone
assigned error, Jaime avers that the prosecution failed to prove the
requisites
for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient basis for conviction. He
claims
that the inferences were drawn not from facts established by direct
evidence,
but from other inferences. Only the circumstance that he regularly
drinks
liquor was proved, and the rest are mere presumptions. The fact that
Virginia’s
death was caused by intracerebral hemorrhage does not in any way evince
that he inflicted the fatal wound. Neither his failure to attend the
wake
and burial of his wife at Bilabila nor his attempted suicide could be
considered
as indicia of his guilt. Instead, the first circumstance should be
accepted
as a normal reaction to a threat directed at his person by his wife’s
family,
while the second should be deemed as the normal deportment of a
grieving
husband who loved his wife dearly. Additionally, the fact that Virginia
returned to their house from Alicia’s house on the eve of her death
proves
that he did not maltreat her. His wife would not have sought the refuge
of their conjugal home if, indeed, her life was threatened there. And
even
granting that he beat up his wife, such would not lead to a logical
conclusion
that he killed her.cralaw:red
For its part, the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with the trial court that the
guilt
of Jaime Baño was established through circumstantial evidence.
The
circumstances that lead to Virginia’s death constitute an unbroken
chain
of events pointing to Jaime as the author of her death. It recommends,
however, the reduction of the award for actual damages from P40,000 to
P30,710, in line with settled jurisprudence that only expenses
supported
by receipts and which appear to have been actually incurred shall be
allowed
as actual damages.cralaw:red
We affirm the conviction
of appellant Jaime Baño for the crime of parricide. While there
was no eyewitness to the killing of Virginia, the following pieces of
circumstantial
evidence have indubitably established that he was responsible for her
brutal
demise.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Virginia would often
go to her hometown to complain to her family about the beatings she had
been receiving from Jaime whenever he was inebriated. Even Kagawad
Raymund
Marquez, a barangay official and a long-time resident of Bucay,
confirmed
the regularity of the beatings whenever Jaime was drunk.cralaw:red
2. On the night of 14
December 1996, Virginia sought refuge in the house of her relative and
tearfully related her quarrel with Jaime that night. Afterwards, she
came
back and reported that her husband threatened to kill her.cralaw:red
3. On that same night,
Jaime was unruly and violent while drinking liquor at the funeral wake
of one Antonina Babida.cralaw:red
4. Jaime and his mother
left the wake at 12:00 midnight. A few minutes later, he returned to
the
wake alone and very angry. He was looking for his wife and badmouthing
her: "Vulva of her mother. Where is that woman? I am very angry with
her
and if I will see her I will kill her." Not finding his wife, he left
the
wake and headed home, which the appellant estimated to be 200 meters
away.cralaw:red
5. By 3:00 a.m. of the
following day, Soledad and Valentin saw, through the window of the
Baños’
house, that Jaime was mauling Virginia. They also overheard Virginia
utter:
"Ouch, why don’t you get tired of beating me, would it not be better if
you just kill me."
6. Barely two hours
after Soledad and Valentin left this brutal scenario, or at about 5:30
a.m., Virginia was found dead along Abra River.cralaw:red
7. The autopsy findings
indicate that the lacerations, abrasions, and hematoma on Virginia’s
dead
body were about two to three hours old, consistent with the physical
abuse
she received from Jaime’s cruel hands at around 3:00 a.m.cralaw:red
Also notable is Jaime’s
disturbing behavior after the death of his wife. He was not seen
grieving.
He neither attended the wake and funeral rites at Bilabila nor shared
in
the expenses relative thereto. He attempted to end his life by drinking
a form of insecticide. His deportment could not possibly be that of a
sincerely
bereaving husband. Restricted within the confines of the case, there is
merit in the trial court’s observation that Jaime’s attempt at suicide
by poisoning himself with insecticide was a form of "escapism"
equivalent
to flight, which is an indication of guilt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary, therefore,
to Jaime’s assertions, the following requisites for circumstantial
evidence
to sustain a conviction are present in the case at bar: (a) there is
more
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived
are proved; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[21]
A review of Jaime’s
arguments in support of his lone assigned error discloses that they
have
no factual bases. His contention that the cause of Virginia’s death,
intracerebral
hemorrhage, does not necessarily mean that he inflicted the wound that
produced such hemorrhage might appear at first glance to be plausible.
But it loses persuasive value in face of the overall evidentiary
strength
of the circumstances proven and the logical consistency of one
circumstance
to the other, as well as the inferences deduced from them.cralaw:red
Verily, a judgment of
conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld when the
circumstances
established would lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as being the author of the
crime.[22]
Stated in another way, the chain of events, perhaps insignificant when
taken separately and independently, nevertheless, produces the effect
of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt when considered cumulatively.
Indeed,
it is the quality of the circumstances, rather than the quantity, that
draws the line on whether the circumstances presented consist of an
unbroken
chain that fulfills the standard of moral certainty to sustain a
conviction.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We also uphold the trial
court’s rejection of the defenses of alibi and denial. For alibi to
prosper,
an accused must show that he was at some other place for such a period
of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the crime scene
at the time of the commission of the crime.[24]
Virginia died between 3:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. of 15 December 1996.
Jaime’s
claim that he was asleep beside his mother from 2:00 a.m. to 4:30 a.m.
of that tragic day at the gate where the wake was held was belied by
Kagawad
Raymund Marquez. The latter testified that a few minutes after 12:00
a.m.,
after looking for his wife and threatening to kill her, Jaime left the
wake and treaded back to his house, which was only about 200 meters
away.
Jaime’s alibi was also negated by Soledad’s testimony that she saw him
brutally hitting his wife at around 3:00 a.m. of that fateful day.cralaw:red
Truly, the incriminating
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Soledad Piid and Kagawad Raymund
Marquez
remain firm and unchallenged. There being no evidence of undue bias or
ill motive that would have impelled them to falsely testify against
Jaime
and implicate him in so despicable a deed as parricide, we conclude
that
none existed and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and
credit.[25]
Jaime’s unsubstantiated defenses of denial and alibi, being negative
and
self-serving, deserve no weight in law and cannot, therefore, be given
evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses who
testify
on affirmative matters.[26]
A fortiori, Jaime should
be held guilty of parricide, which is defined under Article 246 of the
Revised Penal Code as follows:
Art. 246. Parricide.
– Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate
or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his
spouse,
shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua to death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The elements of parricide
are (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused;
and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate
or illegitimate, or a legitimate ascendant, descendant, or spouse of
the
accused.[27]
Linda Baño, Jaime’s
legitimate spouse,[28]
was shown by circumstantial evidence to have been killed by appellant
Jaime
Baño himself. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances,
he should be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is the
lower
of the prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.cralaw:red
Now, on Jaime’s civil
liability. The victim’s heirs should be awarded civil indemnity of
P50,000,
which is mandatory upon proof of the fact of death of the victim and
the
culpability of the accused for the death. Likewise, moral damages in
the
sum of P50,000 should be awarded even in the absence of allegation and
proof of the emotional suffering by the victim’s relatives conformably
with People v. Carillo,[29]
People v. Panela,[30]
and People v. Panado.[31]
We, however, delete
the award of actual damages, it appearing that it is supported by a
mere
list of expenses and not by official receipts.[32]
A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have
been issued as a matter of course in business transactions. Neither can
the mere testimonies of the victim’s siblings, Melecio Bolesa and
Cristeta
Bolesa Maaño, on the amount they spent suffice. It is necessary
for a party seeking an award for actual damages to produce competent
proof
or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nonetheless, in the
absence of substantiated and proven expenses relative to the wake and
burial
of the victim, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 shall be
awarded
to the heirs of the victims, since they clearly incurred funeral
expenses.[34]
WHEREFORE, the assailed
decision of 3 August 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Abra, Branch
58,
in Criminal Case No. N-0133 convicting appellant JAIME BAÑO of
parricide
under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to
suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the
modification
that he is ordered to pay the heirs of Virginia Bolesa Baño the
sums of P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and
P25,000
as temperate damages.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban,
Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Exhibit "H," Original Record (OR), 17.
[2]
TSN, 9 October 1997, 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, 8 August 1997, 5.
[4]
TSN, 10 July 1997, 6-7.
[5]
TSN, 25 March 1999, 3.
[6]
OR, 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., 29.
[8]
TSN, 9 October 1997, 8-11.
[9]
TSN, 4 September 1997, 5-8.
[10]
Id., 8-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., 10-12.
[12]
TSN, 8 August 1997, 4-11.
[13]
TSN, 10 July 1997, 7; TSN, 24 October 1997, 4-5; Exh. "K," OR, 68.
[14]
TSN, 10 July 1997, 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
OR, 77-80.
[16]
Id., 85.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN, 21 January 1999, 6-10; TSN, 30 July 1998, 8. TSN, 4 February 1999,
6.
[18]
TSN, 21 January 1999, 11-16, 22-24; TSN, 4 February 1999, 7-11, 15-18.
[19]
OR, 96-122; Rollo, 21-49. Per Presiding Judge Alberto V. Benesa.
[20]
OR, 120.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Sec. 4, Rule 133, Rules on Evidence; People v. Estrellanes Jr., G.R.
No.
111003, 15 December 1994, 239 SCRA 235; People v. Operaña, G.R.
No. 120546, 13 October 2000, 343 SCRA 43.
[22]
People v. Genobia, G.R. No. 110058, 3 August 1994, 234 SCRA 699; People
v. Velasco, G.R. No. 128089, 13 February 2001, 351 SCRA 539.
[23]
People v. Operaña, supra note 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. Bolivar, G.R. No. 130597, 21 February 2001, 352 SCRA 438;
People
v. Alarcon, G.R. Nos. 133191-93, 11 July 2000, 335 SCRA 457.
[25]
People v. Excija, 327 Phil. 1072 (1996); People v. Abrecinoz, 346 Phil.
37 (1997); People v. Estares, 347 Phil. 202 (1997); People v. Castillo,
G.R. No. 139339, 19 January 2001, 349 SCRA 732.
[26]
People v. Gallarde, 382 Phil. 718 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
2 Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code 461 (14th ed. 1998).
[28]
Exh. "H," OR, 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
G.R. No. 129528, 8 June 2000, 333 SCRA 338.
[30]
G.R. No. 124475, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 308.
[31]
388 Phil. 1010 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Exh. "K," OR, 68.
[33]
People v. Caraig, G.R. Nos. 116224-27, 28 March 2003.
[34]
People v. Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, 27 October 2003. |