5. People vs Salafranca

8/18/2019 5. People vs Salafranca

1/32

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

EOPLE OF THE

HILIPPINES,

laintiff-Appellee,

versus-

G.R. No. 173476

Present:

CORONA, C.J.,

Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE

CASTRO,


2/32

ODRIGO SALAFRANCA

BELLO,

Accused-Appellant.

BERSAMIN,

VILLARAMA, JR., and

*PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

Promulgated:

February 22, 2012

---------------------------------------------------------- ---------x

D E C I S I O N

ERSAMIN, J .:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn1


3/32

An ante-mortem declaration of a victim omurder, homicide, or parricide that meets th

onditions of admissibility under the Rules oourt and pertinent jurisprudence is admissibl

ither as a dying declaration or as a part of the reestae, or both.

Rodrigo Salafranca y Bello was charged witnd tried for murder for the fatal stabbing of Johnn

olanon, and was ultimately found guilty of thelony by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, i

Manila on September 23, 2004. On appeal, hi

onviction was affirmed by the Court of AppealCA) through its decision promulgated on Novembe

4, 2005.[1]

Salafranca has come to the Court on a fina

ppeal, continuing to challenge the credibility of thwitnesses who had incriminated him.

The established facts show that pasmidnight on July 31, 1993 Bolanon was stabbed nea

he Del Pan Sports Complex in Binondo, Manila; thafter stabbing Bolanon, his assailant ran away; tha

olanon was still able to walk to the house of hincle Rodolfo B. Estao in order to seek help; that hi

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn2


4/32

ncle rushed him to the Philippine General Hospitay taxicab; that on their way to the hospital Bolano

old Estao that it was Salafranca who had stabbeim; that Bolanon eventually succumbed at th

ospital at 2:30 am despite receiving medicattention; and that the stabbing of Bolanon waersonally witnessed by Augusto Mendoza, then sti

minor of 13 years, who was in the complex at thme.[2]

As stated, Salafranca fled after stabbinolanon. He evaded arrest for a long period, despit

he warrant for his arrest being issued. He wanally arrested on April 23, 2003, and detained a

he Manila City Jail.

After trial, the RTC convicted Salafranca

tating:

The evidence is clear that itwas Rodrigo Salafranca who

delivered two (2) stabbing blows to

the victim while holding Johnny

Bolanon with his left arm encircled

around Bolanons neck stabbing the



5/32

latter with the use of his right hand

at the right sub costal area which

caused Bolanons death. Not only

because it was testified to by

Augusto Mendoza but corroborated

by Rodolfo Estao, the victims uncle

who brought Bolanon to the hospital

and who relayed to the court that

when he aided Bolanon and even ontheir way to the hospital while the

latter was suffering from hard

breathing, victim Bolanon was able

to say that it was Rodrigo Salafrancawho stabbed him.[3]

he RTC appreciated treachery based on th

estimony of Prosecution witness Mendoza on how

alafranca had effected his attack against Bolanonbserving that by encircling his (accused) left arm

while behind the victim on the latters neck an

tabbing the victim with the use of his right handalafranca did not give Bolanon any opportunity t

efend himself .[4] The RTC noted inconsistencies ialafrancas and his witness testimonies, as well a

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn4


6/32

he fact that he had fled from his residence the dafter the incident and had stayed away in Bataan fo

ight years until his arrest. The RTC opined that hae not been hiding, there would be no reason fo

im to immediately leave his residence, especiallecause he was also working near the area.[5]

The RTC disposed thus:

With the above observations and

findings, accused Rodrigo Salafranca

is hereby found guilty of the crime of

Murder defined and punished under

Article 248 as amended by Republic

Act No. 7659 in relation to Article 63

of the Revised Penal Code with the

presence of the qualifying

aggravating circumstance of

treachery (248 par. 1 as amended)without any mitigating nor other

aggravating circumstance attendant

to its commission, Rodrigo

Salafranca is hereby sentenced to



7/32

suffer the penalty of reclusion

perpetua.

He shall be credited with the full

extent of his preventiveimprisonment under Article 29 of

the Revised Penal Code.

His body is hereby committed to the

custody of the Director of the

Bureau of Correction, National

Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City thru

the City Jail Warden of Manila.

He is hereby ordered to indemnify

the heirs of the victim the sum

of P50,000.00 representing death

indemnity.

There being no claim of other

damages, no pronouncement is

hereby made.

SO ORDERED.[6]



8/32

n appeal, the CA affirmed the findings anonclusions of the RTC,[7] citing the dyin

eclaration made to his uncle pointing to Salafrancs his assailant ,[8] and Salafrancas positiv

dentification as the culprit by Mendoza.[9] Itressed that Salafrancas denial and his alibi of beinn his home during the incident did not overcom

he positive identification, especially as hinexplained flight after the stabbing, leaving hi

ome and employment, constituted a circumstancighly indicative of his guilt .[10]

resently, Salafranca reiterates his defenses, annsists that the State did not prove his guilt beyon

easonable doubt.

The appeal lacks merit.

Discrediting Mendoza and Estao a

witnesses against Salafranca would be unwarrantedhe RTC and the CA correctly concluded thaMendoza and Estao were credible and reliable. Th

etermination of the competence and credibility owitnesses at trial rested primarily with the RTC a

he trial court due to its unique and unequalleosition of observing their deportment durin

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn8


9/32

estimony, and of assessing their credibility anppreciating their truthfulness, honesty and candor

bsent a substantial reason to justify the reversal ohe assessment made and conclusions reached b

he RTC, the CA as the reviewing court was bound buch assessment and conclusions,[11] considerinhat the CA as the appellate court could neithe

ubstitute its assessment nor draw differenonclusions without a persuasive showing that th

TC misappreciated the circumstances or omittegnificant evidentiary matters that would alter th

esult .[12]Salafranca did not persuasively show

misappreciation or omission by the RTC. Hence, thourt, in this appeal, is in no position to undo or t

ontradict the findings of the RTC and the CA, whicwere entitled to great weight and respect .[13]

Salafrancas denial and alibi were worthlesn the face of his positive identification by Mendoz

s the assailant of Bolanon. The lower courtroperly accorded full faith to such incrimination b

Mendoza considering that Salafranca did not eve

roject any ill motive that could have impelleMendoza to testify against him unless it was upo

he truth.[14]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn12


10/32

Based on Mendozas account, Salafranca hattacked Bolanon from behind and had encircled hi

eft arm over the neck (of Bolanon) and deliverehe stabbing blow using the right(hand) and comin

rom wnnt (sic) up right sideways and another onncircling the blow towards below the lefipple.[15] Relying on Mendozas recollection of how

alafranca had attacked Bolanon, the RTC founreachery to be attendant in the killing. This findin

he CA concurred with. We join the CAs concurrencecause Mendozas eyewitness account of the mannef attack remained uncontested by Salafranca wh

merely insisted on his alibi. The method and meanalafranca employed constituted a surprise deadl

ttack against Bolanon from behind and included aggressive physical control of the latters movementhat ensured the success of the attack without an

etaliation or defense on the part of Bolanonccording to the Revised Penal Code, [16] treachery i

resent when the offender commits any of thrimes against the person, employing means

methods or forms in the execution thereof whicend directly and specially to insure its execution

without risk to himself arising from the defens

which the offended party might make.



11/32

The Court further notes Estaos testimony ohe utterance by Bolanon of statements identifyin

alafranca as his assailant right after the stabbinncident. The testimony follows:

Q Can you tell what happened on the

said date?

A My nephew arrived in our house

with a stab wound on his leftchest.

Q What time was that?

A 12:50 a.m.

Q When you saw your nephew with

a stab wound, what did he say?

A Tito dalhin mo ako

sa Hospital sinaksak ako.


12/32

Q What did you do?

A I immediately dressed up andbrought him to PGH.

Q On the way to the PGH whattranspired?

A While traveling toward PGH I

asked my nephew who stabbed

him?, and he answered, Rod

Salafranca.

Q Do you know this Rod Salafranca?

A Yes, Sir.


13/32

Q How long have you known him?

A Matagal na ho kasi mag-neighbor

kami.

Q If you see him inside the

courtroom will you be able to

identify him?

A Yes, Sir.

Q Will you look around and point

him to us?

A (Witness pointing to a man who

answered by the name of Rod

Salafranca.)

COURT


14/32

When he told you the name of his

assailant what was his

condition?

A He was suffering from hardbreathing so I told him not to

talk anymore because he will

just suffer more.

Q What happened when you told

him that?

A He kept silent.

Q What time did you arrive at thePGH?

A I cannot remember the time

because I was already confused

at that time.


15/32

Q When you arrived at the PGH what

happened?

A He was brought to Emergency

Room.

Q When he was brought to the

emergency room what

happened?

A He was pronounced dead.[17]

It appears from the foregoing testimony tha

olanon had gone to the residence of Estao, hincle, to seek help right after being stabbed b

alafranca; that Estao had hurriedly dressed up tring his nephew to the Philippine General Hospitay taxicab; that on the way to the hospital, Estao ha

sked Bolanon who had stabbed him, and the latte



16/32

ad told Estao that his assailant had been Salafrancahat at the time of the utterance Bolanon ha

eemed to be having a hard time breathing, causinstao to advise him not to talk anymore; and tha

bout ten minutes after his admission at thmergency ward of the hospital, Bolanon haxpired and had been pronounced dead. Suc

rcumstances qualified the utterance of Bolanon aoth a dying declaration and as part of the re

estae, considering that the Court has recognizehat the statement of the victim an hour before hieath and right after the hacking incident bore a

he earmarks either of a dying declaration or part ohe res gestae either of which was an exception t

he hearsay rule.[18]

A dying declaration, although generall

nadmissible as evidence due to its hearsaharacter, may nonetheless be admitted when th

ollowing requisites concur, namely: (a) that theclaration must concern the cause and surroundinrcumstances of the declarants death; (b) that at th

me the declaration is made, the declarant is undeconsciousness of an impending death; (c) that th

eclarant is competent as a witness; and(d ) that theclaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide



17/32

murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is ictim.[19]

All the requisites were met herein. Bolano

ommunicated his ante-mortem statement to Estaodentifying Salafranca as the person who hatabbed him. At the time of his statement, Bolanon

was conscious of his impending death, havinustained a stab wound in the chest and, accordin

o Estao, was then experiencing great difficulty ireathing. Bolanon succumbed in the hospitamergency room a few minutes from admission

which occurred under three hours after thtabbing. There is ample authority for the view tha

he declarants belief in the imminence of his deathan be shown by the declarants own statements orom circumstantial evidence, such as the nature o

is wounds, statements made in his presence, or bhe opinion of his physician.[20] Bolanon would hav

een competent to testify on the subject of theclaration had he survived. Lastly, the dyineclaration was offered in this criminal prosecutio

or murder in which Bolanon was the victim.

declaration or an utterance is deemed as part ohe res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as a



18/32

xception to the hearsay rule when the followinequisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the re

estae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statementre made before the declarant had time to contriv

r devise; and (c) the statements must concern thccurrence in question and its immediatelttending circumstances.[21]

he requisites for admissibility of a declaration a

art of the res gestae concur herein. Surely, when have the identity of the assailant to Estao, Bolano

was referring to a startling occurrence, i.e., hi

tabbing by Salafranca. Bolanon was then on boarhe taxicab that would bring him to the hospital, an

hus had no time to contrive his identification oalafranca as the assailant. His utterance aboualafranca having stabbed him was made i

pontaneity and only in reaction to the startlinccurrence. The statement was relevant because i

dentified Salafranca as the perpetrator.

he term res gestae has been defined as thos

rcumstances which are the undesigned incidents oparticular litigated act and which are admissibl

when illustrative of such act .[22] In a general way, reestae refers to the circumstances, facts, an



19/32

eclarations that grow out of the main fact and servo illustrate its character and are so spontaneou

nd contemporaneous with the main fact as txclude the idea of deliberation an

abrication.[23] The rule on res gestae encompassehe exclamations and statements made by either tharticipants, victims, or spectators to a crim

mmediately before, during, or immediately after thommission of the crime when the circumstance

re such that the statements were made aspontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by th

xcitement of the occasion and there was n

pportunity for the declarant to deliberate and tabricate a false statement.[24] The test o

dmissibility of evidence as a part of theres gestae isherefore, whether the act, declaration, oxclamation is so intimately interwoven o

onnected with the principal fact or event that iharacterizes as to be regarded as a part of th

ransaction itself, and also whether it clearlegatives any premeditation or purpose t

manufacture testimony.[25]

We modify the limiting of civil damages b

he CA and the RTC to only the death indemnitf P50,000.00. We declare that the surviving heirs o

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn24


20/32

olanon were entitled by law to more than sucndemnity, because the damages to be awarde

when death occurs due to a crime may include: (avil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim

which was granted herein); (b) actual oompensatory damages; (c) moral damages; (dxemplary damages; and (e) temperate damages.[26]

We hold that the CA and the RTC shoul

ave further granted moral damages which werifferent from the death indemnity.[27] The deat

ndemnity compensated the loss of life due to crime

ut appropriate and reasonable moral damagewould justly assuage the mental anguish an

motional sufferings of the surviving family of thictim.[28] Although mental anguish and emotionaufferings of the surviving heirs were no

uantifiable with mathematical precision, the Courmust nonetheless strive to set an amount that woul

estore the heirs of Bolanon to their moral status qunte. Given the circumstances, the amounf P50,000.00 is reasonable as moral damage

which, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[29] wre bound to award despite the absence of an

llegation and proof of the heirs mental anguish anmotional suffering. The rationale for doing s

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn27


21/32

ested on human nature and experience havinhown that:

xxx a violent death invariably and

necessarily brings about emotionalpain and anguish on the part of the

victims 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. Such violent death or

brutal killing not only steals from

the family of the deceased his

precious life, deprives them forever

of his love, affection and support,

but often leaves them with the

gnawing feeling that an injustice has

been done to them.[30]

The CA and the RTC committed anothe

mission consisting in their non-recognition of thght of the heirs of Bolanon to temperate damages

is already settled that when actual damages fourial and related expenses are not substantiated b



22/32

eceipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.0re warranted, for it would certainly be unfair to th

urviving heirs of the victim to deny themompensation by way of actual damages.[31]

Moreover, the Civil Code provides thaxemplary damages may be imposed in crimina

ases as part of the civil liability when the crime waommitted with one or more aggravatin

rcumstances.[32]

The Civil Code permits sucamages to be awarded by way of example oorrection for the public good, in addition to th

moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatoramages.[33] Conformably with such legal provision

he CA and the RTC should have recognized thntitlement of the heirs of the victim to exemplaramages because of the attendance of treachery. I

was of no moment thattreachery was an attendanrcumstance in murder, and, as such, inseparabl

nd absorbed in murder. The Court explained sn People v. Catubig:[34]

The term aggravating

circumstances used by the Civil

Code, the law not having specified

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftn32


23/32

otherwise, is to be understood in its

broad or generic sense. The

commission of an offense has a two-

pronged effect, one on the public as

it breaches the social order and the

other upon the private victim as it

causes personal sufferings, each of

which is addressed by, respectively,

the prescription of heavierpunishment for the accused and by

an award of additional damages to

the victim. The increase of the

penalty or a shift to a graver felonyunderscores the exacerbation of the

offense by the attendance of

aggravating circumstances, whether

ordinary or qualifying, in itscommission. Unlike the criminal

liability which is basically a State

concern, the award of damages,

however, is likewise, if not

primarily, intended for the


24/32

offended party who suffers

thereby. It would make little

sense for an award of exemplary

damages to be due the private

offended party when the

aggravating circumstance is

ordinary but to be withheld when

it is qualifying. Withal, the

ordinary or qualifying nature ofan aggravating circumstance is a

distinction that should only be of

consequence to the criminal,

rather than to the civil, liability ofthe offender. In fine, relative to

the civil aspect of 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 2230 of

the Civil Code.


25/32

For the purpose of fixing the exemplaramages, the sum of P30,000.00 is deeme

easonable and proper,[35] because we think that esser amount could not result in genuin

xemplarity.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision o

he Court of Appeals promulgated on November 24005, but MODIFIES the awards of civil damages b

dding to the amount of P50,000.00 awarded aeath indemnity the amounts of P50,000.00 a

moral damages; P25,000.00 as temperate damages

nd P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all of whicwards shall bear interest of 6% per annum from th

nality of this decision.

The accused shall further pay the costs of

uit.

O ORDERED.



26/32

UCAS P. BERSAMIN

ssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson


27/32

ERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARTI

VILLARAMA, JR.

ssociate Justice Associate Justice


28/32

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

ursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of th

onstitution, I certify that the conclusions in th

bove Decision had been reached in consultatio

efore the case was assigned to the writer of th

pinion of the Courts Division.


29/32

RENATO C

CORONA

Chief Justic


30/32

Vice Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, who is on sick leave, pepecial Order No. 1203 dated February 17, 2012.

Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, J

ater Presiding Justice, now retired), with Associate Justice Juan Q

nriquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring.I d ., pp. 3-4.

CA rollo, p. 36.

I d., p. 38.I d., pp. 36-38.

I d ., p. 39.

Supra, at note 1.

I d . at p. 6.I d . at p. 9.] CA rollo, p. 110.] People v. Resuma, G.R. No. 179189, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 72

37.] People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 21

30; Bricenio v. People , G.R. No. 157804, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 48

96.] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, November 28, 2007, 539 SCR

06, 314; People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 51

CRA 537, 547, People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 50

CRA 219, 230;Perez v. People , G.R. No. 150443, January 20, 2006, 47

CRA 209, 219; People v. Tonog, Jr ., G.R. No. 144497, June 29, 2004, 43

CRA 139, 153-154; People v. Genita, Jr ., G.R. No. 126171, March 11, 200

25 SCRA 343, 349;People v. Pacheco, G.R. No. 142887, March 2, 200

24 SCRA 164, 174; People v. Abolidor , G.R. No. 147231, February 1

004, 423 SCRA 260, 265-266; People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 137542-4

nuary 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 248, 256.

4] Domingo v. People, G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 4808.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref2


31/32

] TSN, September 1, 2003, pp. 3-4.6] Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code.7] TSN, March 18, 2003, pp. 3-4.8] People v. Loste, G.R. No. 94785, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 614, 62

ting People v. Mision, G.R. No. 63480, February 26, 1991, 194 SCRA 4339-340.

] People v. Labagala, G.R. No. 184603, August 2, 2010, 626 SCRA 2678; see also People v. Garma, G.R. No. 110872, April 18, 1997, 271 SCR

17, 522; People v. Elizaga, No. L-78794, November 21, 1988, 167 SCR16, 520;People v. Lanza, No. L-31782, December 14, 1979, 94 SCRA 61

25; People v. Saliling, No. L-27874, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 427, 438] M. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence 7074, Interi

dition, Vol. 30B, 2000, West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota; citing Shepard

nited States, 290 US 96, 100; Mattox v. United States, 146 US 140, 15ense of impending death may be made to appear from the nature an

xtent of the wounds inflicted, being obviously such that he must have feknown that he could not survive.); Webb v. Lane, 922 F.2d 390, 39

96 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Mobley , 491 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1970).] People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, September 28, 1994, 237 SCRA 21

24; People v. Maguikay , G.R. No. 103226-28, October 14, 1994, 237 SCR

87, 600.] Alhambra Bldg. & Loan Assn v. DeCelle , 118 P. 2d 19, 47 C.A. 2

09; Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. v. Lewis, 61 N.E. 2d 297, 326 Ill. App. 117] Kaiko v. Dolinger , 440 A. 2d 198, 184 Conn. 509; Southern Surety Co.

Weaver , Com. App. 273 S.W. 838.4] People v. Sanchez , G.R. No. 74740, August 28, 1992, 213 SCRA 70, 79.

] Molloy v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 166 N.E. 530, 335 Ill. 164; CampbeGladden, 118 A. 2d 133, 383 Pa. 144, 53 A.L.R. 2d 1222.

6] People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012; People

omingo, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009, 580 SCRA 436, 455.7] Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos , L-25913, February 28, 1969, 2CRA 327, 333.8] Article 2206, (3), in relation to Article 2217 and Article 2219, Civ

ode, and Article 107, Revised Penal Code. ] People v. Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002, 373 SCRA 5

9; People v. Osianas, G.R. No. 182548, September 30, 2008, 567 SCR

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref16


32/32

19, 340; People v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008, 561 SCR

37, 367-368;People v. Berondo, Jr., G.R. No. 177827, March 30, 2009, 58CRA 547.

] People v. Panado, G.R. No. 133439, December 26, 2000, 348 SCRA 67

90-691.] People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, 605 SCR

84, 804-805.] Article 2230, Civil Code. ] Article 2229, Civil Code.

4] G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621, 635.] See People v. Dela Cruz , G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCR

38, 752, People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No.189580, February 9, 2011, 64

CRA 625, 637-638.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/173476.htm#_ftnref31

Documents

5. People vs Salafranca