Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
Manila
F I RST DI VI SIO N
Present:
- versus -
PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
(Chairperson)
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR. and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING SELF DEFENSE ON THE PART OF
THE ACCUSED.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS WERE IN LAWFUL PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL DUTY.
III
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS
CONSPIRACY.
IV
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO
ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF MURDER.[4]
The CA rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of conviction is MODIFIED. Appellants are hereby
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The award for attorneys fees and appearance fees for
counsel are hereby deleted. In all the other aspects, the appealed decision is maintained.
Let the entire records of the case be elevated to the Supreme Court for the mandated
review.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The CA affirmed the findings of fact as well as the salient portions of the RTC Decision, but
deleted the award of attorneys fees and the per appearance fees of counsel since, the
CA reasoned, the instant case is criminal in nature which is under the control of the public
prosecutor, and, additionally, the RTC failed to justify this award in the body of its
Decision. And last, the CA found that the RTC erroneously applied the Indeterminate
Sentence Law since the penalty for Murder, at the time of the incident, was reclusion
perpetua which is an indivisible penalty to be imposed in its entirety, regardless of the
attending mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
A ppe l l ants a re now be fore thi s C ourt su bmi tti n g for re sol uti on t he sa me
ma tte rs arg ue d be fo re t he C A. Throu gh t hei r Ma ni fe st ati on d ate d Fe bru ary
1 1, 20 03 , [ 6 ] ap pel l ant s praye d to di spe nse wi th the fi l i n g of ad di ti onal bri e fs.
As of date , the re cords show that de spi te the e ff orts exe rte d b y the sure t y
an d the re s ponsi bl e l aw offi ce rs to l ocate the a ppe l l ants, the l atte r coul d not
be fou nd a nd h ave j u mpe d b ai l. [ 7 ]
The ap pe al is par tl y me ri tori ous.
A ppe l l ants argue th at the courts a quo mi sap pre ci ate d the facts an d e rre d i n
fi n di ng that the re w as no unl aw f ul agg re ssi on o n the part of the vi cti m. The y
i nsi st t hat the vi cti m, J avie r, had bee n arme d w i th a re vol ve r at the ti me he
w as stru ggl i n g w i th ap pe ll an t Daga ni ; that t he forme r coul d ha ve e asi l y ki l le d
the l atte r; that, gi ve n t he fac t that Javi e r had bee n dri nki ng, i t i s q ui te
p ro ba ble for J avie r to act harshl y and a gg re ssi vel y tow ards pe ace offi ce rs
suc h as the accuse d; [ 8 ] and that Javi e r actual l y fi re d thre e shot s fro m hi s . 22
cal i be r gu n. [ 9 ]
We are not co nvi nce d.
C our ts mus t j udge the g ui l t or i nnoce nce of the acc use d base d on facts a nd
no t on me re conj e ctu re s, pre su mp ti ons, or sus pi ci ons. [ 3 8 ] O the r tha n the pl ai n
fact that the vi cti m had bee n sho t by one of the accuse d w hil e bei n g he l d by
a c o -acc use d, the re i s n o othe r e vi de nce tha t the ap pel l an ts we re ani mate d
by the same pur pose or we re move d b y a pre vi o us com mon acco rd. I t fol l ow s
mi ti g ati n g ci rcu msta nce of vol unt ary surre n de r, as d ul y ap pre ci ate d b y the
cour ts a q uo, sh al l be off se t agai ns t the ag grava ti ng ci rcums tance of taki n g
a dvan tage of offi ci al posi ti on, the pe nal ty shoul d be i m pose d i n i ts me di um
pe ri od, p ursu ant to Arti cle 6 4 (4 ) of t he afo re sai d C ode.
A ppl yi n g the I nde te rmi nate Se nte nce L aw , the se nte nce of appe l l ant San ti ano
w i ll consi st of a mi ni mu m tha t i s a nyw he re w i thi n the ful l ran ge of pri si on
ma yor , and a maxi m um w hi ch i s anyw he re wi thi n re cl usi on te m pora l i n i ts
me di u m pe ri od. Thi s C our t he re by fi xe s i t to be fro m ei g ht (8 ) ye ars an d one
(1 ) day of pri si on ma yor as mi ni mum, to fourte e n (1 4 ) ye ars, e i ght (8 )
mo nth s, and o ne (1 ) day of re cl usi on te m poral , as m axi mu m.
As to the aw ard of d ama ge s, p re vai l i ng j uri spru de nce e nti tl e s the he i rs of the
de ce ase d to the amo unt of P 5 0, 00 0 .0 0 as ci vi l i nde mni t y for the de ath of the
vi cti m w i tho ut ne e d of any e vi de nce or proof of da ma ge s. [ 5 6 ]
The C A e rre d i n de l e ti ng the att orne ys fee s an d pe r ap pe arance fee s for l ack
of fac tual ba si s. Al tho ug h the C A i s corre ct i n noti ng th at the RTC fai le d to
j usti fy the se aw ards i n the bo dy of i ts De ci si on, thi s a ppe al ope ns the e nti re
case for re vi e w an d, accordi ngl y, the re co rds show th at the fo re goi n g
am oun ts ha d bee n sti pul ate d by the par tie s, [ 5 7 ] the re by di s pe nsi ng w i th t he
ne e d to p rove the same . [ 5 8 ]
As to moral da ma ge s, how e ve r, the w i dow of the vi cti m, Erli n da J avie r, i s not
e nti tl e d to the same . S he di d not te sti fy on any me n tal an gui sh or e moti o nal
di st re ss w hi ch she suff e re d as a re s ul t of he r hus ban ds de at h. N o ot he r hei rs
of J avi e r te sti fi e d i n the same man ne r. [ 5 9 ]
I nasm uch as the aggr avati n g ci rc umst ance of taki n g adva nta ge of offi ci al
po si ti on atte n de d the kil l i ng, the C ourt aw ards exe mpl ary dam age s i n the
am oun t of P 25 ,0 00 . 00 i n accordance w i th Arti cl e s 22 30 and 22 34 of the Ci vi l
C ode an d pre v ai li n g j uri spr ude nce . [ 6 0 ]
W HE REFO R E, the De ci si on of the C ourt of Appe al s i n C A- G. R. C R N o. 1 53 04
d ate d J une 20 , 20 02 i sMO DI FI ED. Ap pel l an t O te l l o San ti ano y Le oni da i s
fo und GUI LTY be yo nd re as ona bl e do ub t of Homi ci de an d i s se n te nce d to suff e r
the pe nal t y of an i nde te rmi nate se n te nce f rom ei ght (8 ) ye ars an d one (1 )
d ay of pri si o n mayor as mi ni m um to fo urtee n (1 4 ) ye ars, e i ght (8 ) mont hs,
an d one (1 ) d ay of re cl usi on te mp oral as m axi mu m. Ap pe ll a nt Sa nti an o i s
fur the r orde re d to pa y the hei rs of t he vi cti m t he am oun ts of P 50 ,0 00 . 00 as
de at h i nde mni t y, P 3 1, 84 5 .0 0 as fune ral an d buri al expe nse s, P 25 ,0 00 . 00 as
exe mpl ary d ama ge s, P 3 0, 00 0 .0 0 as attorne ys fe e s and P 1 ,0 00 . 00
pe r ap pe arance of cou nse l. A ppe l l ant S anti a no shal l be cre di te d w i th t he ful l
exte nt of hi s p re ve nti ve i mpri son me nt.
A ppe l l ant Rol an do Da gani y Re ye s i s he re by AC Q UI TTED.
SO O RDE RED.
MA. ALI C I A AU STRI A-M ARTI N EZ
Ass oci ate Justi ce
W E C O NC U R:
A RT EMI O V. PAN GAN IB AN
C hi e f J usti ce
C hai r pe rson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
10
[28]
11
[60]
12