5/25/2017 G.R.No.

173822

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
THIRDDIVISION


SALVADORATIZADOand G.R.No.173822
SALVADORMONREAL,
Petitioners, Present:

CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
BRION,
versus BERSAMIN,

VILLARAMA,JR.,and
SERENO,JJ.
PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
Respondent.
October13,2010
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:


On May 4, 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Sorsogon, convicted the
[1]
petitioners of murder. On December 13, 2005, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed their
[2]
convictioninC.A.G.R.CRHCNo.01450,butmodifiedtheawardeddamages.

ThepetitionerscontesttheCAsaffirmanceoftheirconvictioninthisappealviapetitionfor
reviewoncertiorari.

Weaffirmtheirconviction,butwereducethepenaltyimposedonSalvadorMonrealbecause
the RTC and the CA did not duly appreciate his minority at the time of the commission of the
crime. We order his immediate release from prison because he already served his sentence, as
hereby modified. Also, we add to the damages to which the heirs of the victim were entitled in
ordertoaccordwiththeprevailinglawandjurisprudence.

Antecedents

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 1/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822

On June 20, 1994, the Office of the Sorsogon Provincial Prosecutor formally charged the
petitionersandacertainDaniloAtizado(Danilo)withmurderthroughthefollowinginformation,
towit:

That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at Barangay Boga, Municipality of Castilla,
Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, and without any
justifiable cause or motive, with intent to kill, armed with handguns, attack, assault and shot one
RogelioLlonayLlave,aSangguniangBayanmemberofCastilla,Sorsogon,therebyinflictingupon
him mortal and serious wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and
prejudiceofhislegalheirs.
[3]
CONTRARYTOLAW.

AfterthepetitionersandDanilopleadednotguiltytotheinformationonNovember7,1994,
[4]
thetrialensued.

The witnesses for the State were Simeona Mirandilla (Mirandilla), Major Saadra Gani
(MajorGani),Dr.WilhelmoAbrantes(Dr.Abrantes),LawrenceLlona(Lawrence),andHerminia
Llona(Herminia).

Mirandilla narrated that on April 18, 1994 she and the late Rogelio Llona (Llona), her
commonlaw husband, had attended the fiesta of Barangay Bonga in Castilla, Sorsogon that at
about 8 pm of that date, they had gone to the house of Manuel Desder (Desder) in the same
barangaythatastheyandJoseJesalva(Jesalva),abarangaykagawadoftheplace,wereseatedin
the sala of Desders house, she heard thundering steps as if people were running and then two
successivegunshotsthatshethensawAtizadopointingagunattheprostratebodyofLlonathat
seeing Atizado about to shoot Llona again, she shouted: Stop, thats enough! that while aiding
Llona,sheheardthreeclickingsounds,and,turningtowardsthedirectionoftheclickingsounds,
sawMonrealpointhisgunatherwhilehewasmovingbackwardsandsimultaneouslyadjustingthe
cylinderofhisgunthatthepetitionersthenfledthesceneoftheshootingthatsherushedtothe
houseofbarangaycaptainJuanitoLagonsing(Lagonsing)toreporttheshootingandthatsheand
[5]
LagonsingbroughtLlonatoahospitalwhereLlonawaspronounceddead.

[6]
MajorGanitestifiedthatthepetitionersandDanilowerearrestedonMay18,1994, based
on the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Teodisio R. Dino, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court in
Castilla,Sorsogon.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 2/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822

Dr. Abrantes confirmed that Llona died due to two gunshot wounds in the back that
[7]
penetratedhisspinalcolumn,liver,andabdomen.

Lawrence and Herminia stated that the Llona family spent P30,000.00 for the funeral
[8]
expensesofLlona.
Denyingtheaccusation,thepetitionersinterposedalibi.ThewitnessesfortheDefensewere
Monreal, Roger Villafe (Villafe), Merlinda Lolos, Joseph Lorenzana (Lorenzana), Jesalva, and
Lagonsing.

TheDefenseshowedthatatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,Atizadohadbeeninhis
familyresidenceinBarangayTomalaytay,Castilla,
Sorsogon,becausehehadbeensickofinfluenza,whileMonrealandDanilohadbeeninthehouse
ofacertainArielalsoinBarangayTomalaytay,Castilla,Sorsogondrinkingginthatthepetitioners
andDanilohadnotbeenrecognizedtobeatthecrimesceneduringtheshootingofLlonaandthat
thepetitionershadbeenimplicatedonlybecauseoftheirbeingemployedbytheiruncleLorenzana,
theallegedmastermindinthekillingofLlona.
Asstated,onMay4,2000,theRTCconvictedthepetitionersbutacquittedDanilo,viz:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCourtfindsaccusedSalvadorAtizadoandSalvador
Monrealguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofmurder,definedandpenalizedunderArticle
248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court hereby
sentences each of the accused to an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of
RogelioLlonathesumofFiftyThousand(P50,000.00)Pesos,Philippinescurrency,insolidum,as
civilindemnity,withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencytoreimbursetheheirsofthe
victimtheamountofP30,000.00asactualexpensesandtopaythecost.

AccusedDaniloAtizadoonreasonabledoubtisherebyacquittedofthecrimechargedandhe
beingadetentionprisoner,hisimmediatereleasefromtheprovincialjailisherebyordered,unlesshe
ischargedofotherlawfulcauseorcauses.

AccusedSalvadorAtizadoandSalvadorMonrealbeingdetained,shallbecreditedinfullinthe
serviceoftheirsentence.

[9]
SOORDERED.

[10]
TheCourtreferredthepetitionersdirectappealtotheCApursuanttoPeoplev.Mateo.

OnDecember13,2005,theCAaffirmedtheconviction,disposing:

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. Accusedappellants Salvador
AtizadoandSalvadorMonrealareherebyorderedtosuffertheimprisonmentofReclusionPerpetua.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 3/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822
AtizadoandSalvadorMonrealareherebyorderedtosuffertheimprisonmentofReclusionPerpetua.
Likewise,theyareorderedtopaytheheirsofRogelioLlonatheamountof:(a)P50,000.00ascivil
indemnity(b)P30,000.00asactualdamagesand(c)P50,000.00asmoraldamages.

[11]
SOORDERED.


[12]
AftertheCAdeniedtheirmotionforreconsideration, thepetitionersnowappeal.

Issue

The petitioners submit that the RTC and the CA erred in finding them guilty of murder
beyondreasonabledoubtbasedontheeyewitnesstestimonyofMirandilladespitehernotbeinga
crediblewitnessthatsomecircumstancesrenderedMirandillastestimonyunreliable,namely:(a)
shehadfailedtoidentifythemastheassailantsofLlona,becauseshehadnotactuallywitnessed
themshootingatLlona(b)shehadmerelyassumedthattheyhadbeentheassailantsfromthefact
that they had worked for Lorenzana, the supposed mastermind (c) the autopsy report stated that
Llona had been shot from a distance, not at close range, contrary to Mirandillas claim (d)
Mirandillas testimony was contrary to human experience and (e) Mirandillas account was
inconsistentwiththatofJesalvas.

Ruling

Theconvictionofthepetitionersisaffirmed,subjecttomodificationsinthepenaltyimposed
onMonrealandintheamountsandkindsofdamagesascivilliability.



I.
FactualfindingsoftheRTCandCA
areaccordedrespect

The RTC and CAs conclusions were based on Mirandillas positive identification of the
petitionersasthemalefactorsandonherdescriptionoftheactsofeachofthemmadeduringher
[13]
courttestimonyonMarch6,1995, viz:

qWhowereyousayingwesattogether?
aKdg.Llona,Mr.JoseJesalvaandIwaslettingmy5yearsoldchildtosleep.

qCanyoudemonstrateordescribedbeforethisHonorableCourtthesizeofthesalaandthehouse
youwherein(sic)?
aThesizeofthesale(sic)isabout3x3meters.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 4/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822
aThesizeofthesale(sic)isabout3x3meters.

qNow,pleaseshowtothisHonorableCourttherelativeposition,thesittingarrangementofyours,
Kgd.LlonaandKgd.Jesalva.
aIwassittingonalongbenchthenmychildwasonmylap,thenKdg.Llonawasinfrontofme,I
wasattherightsideofKdg.Llona

qHowaboutKdg.Jesalva?
aThisKgd.JesalvawasfacingKgd.LlonaandKgd.Llonawasfacingthedoorinotherwords,the
doorwasathisback.

qWasthedooropen?
aYes,sir.
qWasthedoorimmediatelyfoundRatherwasthisthemaindoorofthehouse?
aThatwasthemaindoorleadingtotheporchofthehouse.

qAndfromtheporchisthemainstairsalready?
aYes,sir.

qNow,whatwereyoudoingthereafterdinnerasyousaidyouhavefinishedassistingthepersonsin
Bonggaabouttheprogram,...afterthat,whatwereyoudoingthen?
aIwaslettingmychildtosleepandKgd.Llonawasfanningmychild.

qHowaboutKgd.Jesalva?
aHisheadwasstopping(sic)becauseofhisdrunkenness.

qCanyoutellthisHonorableCourt,whileyouwereonthatsituation,iftherewasanyincidentthat
happened?
aTherewasasuddenthunderingstepsasiftheywererunningandthereweresuccessiveshots.

q Simultaneously with these two (2) successive shots can you see the origin or who was
responsiblefortheshots?
aUponhearingtheshots,IturnedmyheadandsawSalvadorAtizado.

qWhoisthisSalvadorAtizado?
aHewastheonewhoshotKgd.Llona.

qCanyoubeabletoidentifyhim?
a(Witnessidentifyingtheperson,andwhenaskedofhisnameansweredSalvadorAtizado.)

qSowhenyouheardtheshots,whowasactuallyshot?
aKgd.Llona,becauseafterlookingatthe(3)personsIsawKgd.Llonaslidingdownward.

qThenafterthatwhathappened?
a Then I stood immediately and I told the persons responsible stop thats enough, and I gave
assistancetoKgd.Llona.

qThenafterthatwhathappened?
aMyintentionwastoletKgd.LlonapushupbutIheardthree(3)clicksofthetriggerofthegun.

qThenwhatdidyoudowhenyouheardthat?
aAfterwhichIturnedmyheadsuddenlythenIsawthisSalvadorMonrealbutatthattimeI
donotknowhisname.

qThenwhatdidyouseeofhim?
aIsawthisSalvadorMonrealsteppingbackwardandhewasadjustingthecylinderofthegun.

qNow,whenyousawandheardAtizadothree(3)clicksofthegun,canyouseewherethegunwas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 5/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822

qNow,whenyousawandheardAtizadothree(3)clicksofthegun,canyouseewherethegunwas
pointedat?
aItwaspointedtowardsme.

qSo,therewerethree(3)shotsthatdidnotactuallyfiredtowardsyou?
aYes,sir.

qSowhenyousaidthatyousawthismanMonreal,canyoustillrecognizethisman?
aYes,sir.

qCouldyoubeabletopointathim,ifheisinCourt?
aYes,sir.

qKindlypleasegodownandtaphisshoulder?
a(witnessgoingdownandproceededtothefirstbenchandtaptheshoulderoftheperson,theperson
tappedbythewitnessansweredtothenameSalvadorMonreal.)

qYousaid,whenyoustoodupandfacewithhimwhilehewasadjustinghisrevolverandhewas
movingbackward,didyouseeotherpersonsashiscompanion,ifany?
aAtthefirsttimewhenIturnedmyheadback,IsawthisAtizadohewasalreadyontheprocessof
leavingtheplace.

qWhoisthefirstnameofthisAtizado?
aDaniloAtizado

qAnddidtheyactuallyleavetheplaceatthatmoment?
aSalvadorMonrealwastheoneleft.

Our own review persuades us to concur with the RTC and the CA. Indeed, Mirandillas
positive identification of the petitioners as the killers, and her declarations on what each of the
petitioners did when they mounted their sudden deadly assault against Llona left no doubt
whatsoeverthattheyhadconspiredtokillandhaddonesowithtreachery.

Itisabasicruleofappellateadjudicationinthisjurisdictionthatthetrialjudgesevaluation
ofthecredibilityofawitnessandofthewitnesstestimonyisaccordedthehighestrespectbecause
thetrialjudgesuniqueopportunitytoobservedirectlythedemeanorofthewitnessenableshimto
[14]
determinewhetherthewitnessistellingthetruthornot. Suchevaluation,whenaffirmedbythe
CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked,
misapprehended,ormisinterpretedthat,ifconsidered,wouldmateriallyaffectthedispositionofthe

[15]
case. We thus apply the rule, considering that the petitioners have not called attention to and
provedanyoverlooked,misapprehended,ormisinterpretedcircumstance.Fortifyingtheapplication
oftheruleisthatMirandillaspositivedeclarationsontheidentitiesoftheassailantsprevailedover
[16]
thepetitionersdenialsandalibi.

Under the law, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 6/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822
Under the law, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
[17]
concerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit. Yet,theStatedidnothaveto
[18]
provethepetitionerspreviousagreementtocommitthemurder, becausetheirconspiracywas
[19]
deducedfromthemodeandmannerinwhichtheyhadperpetratedtheircriminalact. Theyhad
actedinconcertinassaultingLlona,withtheirindividualactsmanifestingacommunityofpurpose
and design to achieve their evil end. As it is, all the conspirators in a crime are liable as co
[20]
principals. Thus, they cannot now successfully assail their conviction as coprincipals in
murder.

Murder is defined and punished by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amendedbyRepublicActNo.7659,whichprovides:

Article248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofArticle246shallkill
another,shallbeguiltyofmurderandshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetuatodeath,ifcommitted
withanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employingmeanstoweakenthedefenseorofmeansorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunity.

2.Inconsiderationofaprice,reward,orpromise.

3.Bymeansofinundation,fire,poison,explosion,shipwreck,strandingofavessel,derailment
orassaultuponarailroad,fallofanairship,orbymeansofmotorvehicles,orwiththeuseofany
othermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake,eruptionofavolcano,destructivecyclone,epidemicorotherpubliccalamity.

5.Withevidentpremeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outragingorscoffingathispersonorcorpse.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employingmeans,methodsorformsintheexecutionthereofwhichtenddirectlyandspeciallyto
insureitsexecution,withoutrisktohimselfarisingfromthedefensewhichoffendedpartymight
[21]
make. For treachery to be attendant, the means, method, or form of execution must be
[22]
deliberateduponorconsciouslyadoptedbytheoffenders. Moreover,treacherymustbepresent
[23]
andseenbythewitnessrightattheinceptionoftheattack.

The CA held that Mirandillas testimonial narrative sufficiently established that treachery
attended the attack o[n] the victim because Atizados shooting the victim at the latters back had
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 7/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822

beenintendedtoensuretheexecutionofthecrimeandthatAtizadoandMonrealsconspiracyto
killthevictimwasprovedbytheirpresenceatthesceneofthecrimeeacharmedwithahandgun
[24]
thattheyhadfiredexceptthatMonrealshandgundidnotfire.

WeconcurwiththeCAontheattendanceoftreachery.Thepetitionersmountedtheirdeadly
assault with suddenness and without the victim being aware of its imminence. Neither an
altercation between the victim and the assailants had preceded the assault, nor had the victim
provoked the assault in the slightest. The assailants had designed their assault to be swift and
[25]
unexpected,inordertodeprivetheirvictimoftheopportunitytodefendhimself. Suchmanner
constitutedadeliberateadoptionofamethodofattackthatensuredtheirunhamperedexecutionof
thecrime.

II.
ModificationofthePenaltyonMonreal
andoftheCivilDamages


Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for
murderisreclusionperpetuatodeath.Therebeingnomodifyingcircumstances,theCAcorrectly
imposedthelesserpenaltyofreclusionperpetuaonAtizado,whichwasconformablewithArticle
[26]
63(2)oftheRPC. ButreclusionperpetuawasnotthecorrectpenaltyforMonrealduetohis
beingaminorover15butunder18yearsofage.TheRTCandtheCAdidnotappreciateMonreals
minorityatthetimeofthecommissionofthemurderprobablybecausehisbirthcertificatewasnot
presentedatthetrial.

Yet,itcannotbedoubtedthatMonrealwasaminorbelow18yearsofagewhenthecrime
was committed on April 18, 1994. Firstly, his counteraffidavit executed on June 30 1994 stated
[27]
thathewas17yearsofage. Secondly,thepoliceblotterrecordinghisarrestmentionedthathe
[28]
was 17 years old at the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994. Thirdly, Villafes affidavit dated
[29]
June29,1994averredthatMonrealwasaminoronthedateoftheincident. Fourthly,asRTCs
[30]
minutesofhearingdatedMarch9,1999showed, Monrealwas22yearsoldwhenhetestified
[31]
on direct examination on March 9, 1999, which meant that he was not over 18 years of age
whenhecommittedthecrime.And,fifthly,MirandilladescribedMonrealasateenagerandyoung
[32]
lookingatthetimeoftheincident.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 8/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822
lookingatthetimeoftheincident.

The foregoing showing of Monreals minority was legally sufficient, for it conformed with
thenormssubsequentlysetunderSection7ofRepublicActNo.9344,alsoknownastheJuvenile
[33]
JusticeandWelfareActof2006, viz:

Section 7. Determination of Age. The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumptionofminority.He/Sheshallenjoyalltherightsofachildinconflictwiththelawuntil
he/sheisproventobeeighteen(18)yearsoldorolder.Theageofachildmaybedeterminedfrom
the childs birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the
absenceofthesedocuments,agemaybebasedoninformationfromthechildhimself/herself,
testimoniesofotherpersons,thephysicalappearanceofthechildandotherrelevantevidence.
Incaseofdoubtastotheageofthechild,itshallberesolvedinhis/herfavor.

Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the
informationinanyappropriatecourtmayfileacaseinasummaryproceedingforthedetermination
of age before the Family Court which shall decide the case within twentyfour (24) hours from
receiptoftheappropriatepleadingsofallinterestedparties.

If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the
appropriatecourt,thepersonshallfileamotiontodeterminetheageofthechildinthesamecourt
wherethecaseispending.Pendinghearingonthesaidmotion,proceedingsonthemaincaseshall
besuspended.

In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government
officialsconcernedshallexertalleffortsatdeterminingtheageofthechildinconflictwiththelaw.

[34]
PursuanttoArticle68(2)oftheRPC, whentheoffenderisover15andunder18yearsof
age,thepenaltynextlowerthanthatprescribedbylawisimposed.BasedonArticle61(2)ofthe
RPC,reclusiontemporalisthepenaltynextlowerthanreclusionperpetuatodeath.Applyingthe
Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 of the RPC, therefore, the range of the penalty of
imprisonment imposable on Monreal was prision mayor in any of its periods, as the minimum
period, to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the maximum period. Accordingly, his

proper indeterminate penalty is from six years and one day of prision mayor, as the minimum
period,to14years,eightmonths,andonedayofreclusiontemporal,asthemaximumperiod.

Monrealhasbeendetainedforover16years,thatis,fromthetimeofhisarrestonMay18,
1994untilthepresent.GiventhattheentireperiodofMonrealsdetentionshouldbecreditedinthe
[35]
serviceofhissentence,pursuanttoSection41ofRepublicActNo.9344, therevisionofthe
penaltynowwarrantshisimmediatereleasefromthepenitentiary.

In this regard, the benefits in favor of children in conflict with the law as granted under
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 9/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822
In this regard, the benefits in favor of children in conflict with the law as granted under
RepublicActNo.9344,whichaimstopromotethewelfareofminoroffendersthroughprograms
and services, such as delinquency prevention, intervention, diversion, rehabilitation and re
integration, geared towards their development, are retroactively applied to Monreal as a convict
servinghissentence.ItsSection68expresslysoprovides:

Section68.ChildrenWhoHaveBeenConvictedandareServingSentences.Personswhohave
beenconvictedandareservingsentenceatthetimeoftheeffectivityofthisAct,andwhowere
belowtheageofeighteen(18)yearsatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffenseforwhichthey
wereconvictedandareservingsentence,shalllikewisebenefitfromtheretroactiveapplication
of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their
sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if they are so
qualifiedunderthisActorotherapplicablelaws.

Both petitioners were adjudged solidarily liable to pay damages to the surviving heirs of
[36]
Llona.Theirsolidarycivilliabilityarisingfromthecommissionofthecrimestands, despitethe
reductionofMonrealspenalty.Butwemustreformtheawardsofdamagesinordertoconformto
prevailingjurisprudence.TheCAgrantedonlyP50,000.00ascivilindemnity,P30,000.00asactual
damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. We hold that the amounts for death indemnity and
[37]
moral damages should each be raised to P75,000.00 to accord with prevailing case law and
that exemplary damages of P30,000.00 due to the attendance of treachery should be further
[38] [39]
awarded, toaccordwiththepronouncementinPeoplev.Catubig, towit:

The commission of an offense has twopronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the
social order and other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which, is
addressedby,respectively,theprescriptionofheavierpunishmentfortheaccusedandbyanawardof
additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony
underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances,
whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is
basicallyaStateconcern,theawardofdamages,howeverislikewise,ifnotprimarily,intended

for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of
exemplarydamagestobeduetheprivateoffendedpartywhentheaggravatingcircumstanceis
ordinarybuttobewithheldwhenitisqualifying.Withal,theordinaryorqualifyingnatureof
an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the
criminal,ratherthantothecivilliabilityoftheoffender.Infine,relativetothecivilaspectof
the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the
offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article
2230oftheCivilCode.

TheawardofactualdamagesofP30,000.00isupheldforbeingsupportedbytherecord.

WHEREFORE, the Court affirms the decision dated December 13, 2005 promulgated in
CAG.R.CRHCNo.01450,subjecttothefollowingmodifications:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 10/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822

(a)SalvadorMonrealissentencedtosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyfromsixyearsandone
dayofprisionmayor,astheminimumperiod,to14years,eightmonths,andonedayofreclusion
temporal,asthemaximumperiod

(b)TheCourtorderstheBureauofCorrectionsinMuntinlupaCitytoimmediatelyrelease
Salvador Monreal due to his having fully served the penalty imposed on him, unless he is being
heldforotherlawfulcausesand

(c) The Court directs the petitioners to pay jointly and solidarily to the heirs of Roger L.
Llona P75,000.00 as death indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages,andP30,000.00asactualdamages.

LetacopyofthisdecisionbefurnishedforimmediateimplementationtotheDirectorofthe
Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City by personal service. The Director of Bureau of
CorrectionsshallreporttothisCourttheactionhehastakenonthisdecisionwithinfivedaysfrom
service.

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




ARTUROD.BRIONMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 11/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822




MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION


IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.




CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson


CERTIFICATION


PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsintheabove
Decisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinion
oftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 12/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822

[1]
Originalrecords,pp.357364(CriminalCaseNo.943653).
[2]
Rollo,pp.1836pennedbyAssociateJusticeVicenteS.E.Veloso,withAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.ReyesandAssociateJustice
AmelitaG.Tolentino,concurring.
[3]
Originalrecords,pp.2023.
[4]
Id.pp.5556.
[5]
TSN,March6,1995,pp.214.
[6]
TSN,February22,1995,p.8.
[7]
TSN,February20,1995,pp.24.
[8]
TSN,January9,1995February22,1995,p.22.
[9]
Supra,note1,p.364.
[10]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.
[11]
Rollo,p.36.
[12]
Id.,p.43.
[13]
Atpp.510.
[14]
Peoplev.Pascual,G.R.No.173309,January23,2007,512SCRA385,392.

[15]
Peoplev.Domingo,G.R.No.184958,September17,2009,600SCRA280,293Peoplev.Gerasta,G.R.No.176981,December24,
2008,575SCRA503,512.
[16]
SeePeoplev.Magdaraog,G.R.No.151251,May19,2004,428SCRA529,531.
[17]
Article8,RevisedPenalCode.
[18]
Peoplev.Cabrera,G.R.No.105992,February1,1955,241SCRA28.
[19]
Peoplev.Factao,G.R.No.12566,January13,2004,419SCRA38.
[20]
Peoplev.Peralta, No. L19069, October29,1968, 25 SCRA 759, 776777 People v. Pablo, G.R. Nos. 12039497, January 16,
2001,349SCRA79.
[21]
Article14,paragraph16,RevisedPenalCode.
[22]
Peoplev.Punzalan,No.L54562,August6,1982,153SCRA1,2.
[23]
Peoplev.Sayaboc,G.R.No.147201,January15,2004,419SCRA659,660Peoplev.Cajurao,G.R.No.122767,January20,2004,
420SCRA207,208Peoplev.Guillermo,G.R.No.147786,January20,2004,420SCRA326,328.
[24]
CARollo,pp.163165.
[25]
Peoplev.Villanueva,G.R.No.122746,January29,1999,302SCRA380,382.
[26]
Article63.Rulesfortheapplicationofindivisiblepenalties.Inallcasesinwhichthelawprescribesasingleindivisiblepenalty,it
shallbeappliedbythecourtsregardlessofanymitigatingoraggravatingcircumstancesthatmayhaveattendedthecommissionofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 13/14
5/25/2017 G.R.No.173822
deed.
Inallcasesinwhichthelawprescribesapenaltycomposedoftwoindivisiblepenalties,thefollowingrulesshallbeobservedin
theapplicationthereof:
xxx
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penaltyshallbeapplied.
xxx
[27]
Originalrecords,pp.2829.
[28]
TSN,February22,1995,p.8.
[29]
Originalrecords,p.30.
[30]
Id.,p.338.
[31]
TSN,March9,1999,p.1.
[32]
TSN,March28,1995,pp.5051.
[33]
ThelawwasenactedonApril28,2006andtookeffectonMay20,2006.
[34]
Article68.Penaltytobeimposeduponapersonundereighteenyearsofage.Whentheoffenderisaminorundereighteenyearsand
hiscaseisonecomingundertheprovisionsoftheparagraphsnexttothelastofArticle80ofthisCode,thefollowingrulesshallbe
observed:
1.Uponapersonunderfifteenbutovernineyearsofage,whoisnotexemptedfromliabilitybyreasonofthecourthavingdeclared
thatheactedwithdiscernment,adiscretionarypenaltyshallbeimposed,butalwayslowerbytwodegreesatleastthanthatprescribedby
lawforthecrimewhichhecommitted.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed,butalwaysintheproperperiod.
[35]
Section41.CreditinServiceofSentence.Thechildinconflictwiththelawshallbecreditedintheservicesofhisofhis/hersentence
withthefulltimespentinactualcommitmentanddetentionunderthisAct.
[36]
Sections6,38and39ofRANo.9344.
[37]
Peoplev.Arbalate,G.R.No.183457,September17,2009,600SCRA239,255Peoplev.Satonero,G.R.No.186233,October2,
2009,602SCRA769.
[38]
Id.
[39]
G.R.No.137842,August23,2001,363SCRA621.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/173822.htm 14/14