Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
|
|
G.R. No. 175980 |
|
Appellee, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, |
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
ADRIANO
CABRILLAS, |
|
|
|
Accused, |
|
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
BENNY
CABTALAN, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Appellant. |
|
February 15, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
Minor
inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect
the credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the
accused as the perpetrators of the crime.
Factual
Antecedents
For our review is the August 29, 2006
Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00039 which affirmed with
modifications the August 29, 2002 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar, in Criminal Case No.
CC-2000-1310, finding appellant Benny Cabtalan (Benny) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder.
The
Information[3]
against Benny and his co-accused Adriano Cabrillas (Adriano) contains the
following accusatory allegations:
That on or about the 11th day of July 1999, at nighttime
which was purposely sought, in Barangay
Laygayon, Municipality of Pinabacdao, Province of Samar, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with
deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault, and stab
one Jesus Cabujat with the use of long bolos (sundang), with which both accused
have provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon the victim
multiple stab wounds, which wounds resulted to his instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Two
years after the incident, Benny was arrested in Las Pias City[5] while to
date, Adriano remains at large. During
his arraignment, Benny entered a plea of not guilty.[6] Trial thereafter ensued.
Version of the
Prosecution
Prosecution witness Wilfredo Pacayra
(Wilfredo) narrated that on
Upon reaching his house, Wilfredo
soon noticed Benny and Adriano circling the house of Jesus Cabujats (Jesus)
daughter, Elena Raypan (Elena), which is just about two arms length away from
his house.[9] Thereafter, the duo stood on a dark portion
of the road.[10]
Later on, he saw Jesus and his 9-year-old
granddaughter Jonalyn C. Raypan (Jonalyn) walking towards the house of Jonalyns
mother, Elena. Jesus stopped and turned
towards a grassy area to urinate when suddenly, Benny and Adriano emerged from
their hiding place. They held Jesus by
his shoulders and alternately stabbed him.
At that moment, Jesus shouted I am wounded, please help me because I
was stabbed by Benny and Adriano.[11] Jesus then
fell to the ground while Benny and Adriano immediately fled from the crime scene.[12]
For her part, prosecution witness
Jonalyn narrated that on the night of the incident, she fetched her grandfather
Jesus from her Ate Susans house.[13] She and her grandfather walked side by side in going
back to their house.[14] However, upon reaching the vicinity of their
house, her grandfather went across the street to urinate. It was then that she saw Benny and Adriano on
the same street.[15] She knew the two because Benny and her father
are cousins while Adriano and her mother are also cousins.[16] She saw the two men take hold of her
grandfathers arms, after which Benny stabbed her grandfather with a long
bolo. She heard her grandfather say
Donie, help me, I am wounded.[17] After that, Jonalyn saw Benny go home.[18]
Elena also testified that when she
heard her father shouting for help, she immediately went outside the house and
saw Benny releasing her father. As she
got nearer to Jesus, Benny and Adriano ran away.[19] When Elena asked her father as to who stabbed
him, the latter replied that it was Benny and Adriano.[20]
Jesus was rushed to a hospital where
he was pronounced dead due to multiple stab wounds.[21] His family spent P18,500.00 for his
wake and burial. At the time of his
death, Jesus was earning P1,000.00 a week as a farmer.
A
case for murder was accordingly filed against Benny and Adriano and a warrant
was issued for their arrest which was, however, returned unserved since they
could no longer be located. It appears
that on
Version of the
Defense
Benny testified that he was in his
mothers house in the morning of
In the succeeding days, Benny went
to
Bennys
mother, Gertrudes, testified that on
Ruling of the Regional
Trial Court
On
The trial court appreciated the presence of the
qualifying circumstance of treachery since the attack upon Jesus who was unarmed
and unsuspecting was without any warning.
It also found the existence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength as both Benny and Adriano held, subdued and attacked the 69-year-old
defenseless Jesus. The trial court further held that conspiracy was evident
since Benny and Adriano had common criminal intent and were united in its
execution.[29]
The
dispositive portion of the trial courts Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution [having] clearly established the guilt of the
accused, BENNY CABTALAN beyond reasonable doubt, he is found guilty of the
crime of Murder, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Death by lethal
injection, to pay the heirs of Jesus Cabujat the amount[s] of Php75,000.00 as
civil liability; Php15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and Php10,000.00 in moral
damages, to reimburse the amount of Php5,000.00 spent for the coffin;
Php5,000.00 for the wake, although no receipts were presented for these last
two expenses yet these are legitimate and reasonable amounts under the
circumstances.
Let the case
against co-accused Adriano Cabrillas be sent to the archives without prejudice,
and issue another alias order for his arrest as soon as possible.
The Samar
Provincial Jail Warden is ordered to proceed accordingly in so far as the
continued detention of the herein accused and his eventual transfer to the
National Penitentiary, and to inform this court in writing on the matter as
soon as possible.
The Acting Branch
Clerk of court is advised to proceed accordingly.
[SO ORDERED.][30]
The case was forwarded to this Court
for automatic review, but same was later referred to the CA in accordance with the
ruling in People v. Mateo.[31]
Ruling of the Court
of Appeals
The
CA affirmed the trial courts judgment of conviction through its
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Regional
Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty is Reclusion
Perpetua, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Jesus Cabujat
Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php25,000.00
as exemplary damages and to suffer accessory penalties attached to the offense
committed.
SO ORDERED.[34]
Assignment of Errors
Benny attempts to secure his
acquittal by assigning the following errors:
I.
THE
II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, THE
X X X X[35]
Benny
insists that the evidence adduced to establish his culpability is not sufficient
and credible. He posits that Wilfredo is
not a credible witness because it took him three years to come out and reveal
the identities of the alleged perpetrators without any adequate explanation for
the delay. He likewise impugns the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses since Wilfredo is a relative of the
victims son-in-law while Jonalyn is a grandchild. In addition, Benny asserts that the
prosecutions evidence is glaring with inconsistencies. According to him, Wilfredos testimony that he
and Adriano took turns in stabbing Jesus is diametrically opposed to Jonalyns
declaration that only he stabbed Jesus. Furthermore,
the testimony of Elena that she inquired from Jesus who his assailants were is
inconsistent with her own affidavit and that of her sister, Julita, as the
affidavits indicated that it was Julita and not Elena who asked their father
about the identity of his assailants.
Benny
therefore concludes that the prosecutions evidence is weak and cannot prevail
over his defense of alibi. Moreover, he asserts
that the prosecution failed to prove that he killed Jesus in a treacherous
manner, hence, he should not be held guilty of murder.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Treachery attended the killing of Jesus, hence, the crime committed is
murder.
Murder is the unlawful killing by
the accused of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, committed with any
of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248[36] of the
Revised Penal Code, among which is treachery.
There is no dispute that the killing
of the victim in this case is neither parricide nor infanticide. The issue that must therefore be resolved is
whether treachery attended the killing as to qualify the crime to murder.
There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the victim
might make.[37] The essence of treachery is that the attack
comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner,
affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.[38]
Based on the account of the
prosecutions eyewitnesses, there is no
doubt that treachery was present. It was
established that Benny and Adriano were in the crime scene prior to the incident. They hid in a dark portion of the road and
assaulted Jesus with their bolos while he was urinating with his back to
them. They even held him by his
shoulders to render him defenseless and unable to resist the attack on him by
his assailants. Wilfredo testified viz:
Q. What
else did you observe while the dogs were barking?
A. While
the dogs were barking, I saw two (2) persons who were [circling] the house of
Elena Raypan, they were walking back and forth in front of the house of Elena
Raypan.
Q. Were
you able to recognize these two (2) persons walking back and forth near the
house of Elena Raypan?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Who
were they?
A. Benny
Cabtalan and Adriano Cabrillas.
Q. How did
you recognize them?
A. Because
the house was lighted.
Q. After
they were going back and forth in front of the house of Elena Raypan, where did
these persons go?
A. They
went to the dark portion of the road.
x x x x
Q. After
they went to the dark portion of the road, what did you observe next?
A. They
just stood by [there].
Q. After
that what happened next?
A. I saw
Jesus Cabujat walking towards the house of Elena Raypan.
Q. Was he
alone?
A. He was
accompanied by a child.
x x x x
Q. When
you saw Jesus Cabujat walking towards the house of Elena Raypan, what did Jesus
Cabujat do before going to the house of Elena Raypan?
A. When
Jesus Cabujat reached the place where the two persons Benny [Cabtalan] and
Adriano Cabrillas were standing, Jesus Cabujat urinated.
x x x x
Q. To what
direction was he facing?
A. He was
facing towards the grassy area.
Q. What
happened while Jesus Cabujat was urinating as you said?
A. Thats
the time when Jesus Cabujat was held on his shoulder.
x x x x
Q. Who
held the left shoulder of Jesus Cabujat?
A. Benny
Cabtalan.
x x x x
Q. [H]ow
about Adriano Cabrillas, what did he do?
x x x x
A. He also
stabbed the victim.
Q. Were
you able to see the weapon used by Benny Cabtalan?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
was the weapon used?
INTERPRETER:
The
witness demonstrated that it was more or less 14 inches.
Q. That
includes the handle?
A. Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q. How
many times did Benny Cabtalan stab the victim?
A. Three
(3) times.
Q. How
about Adriano Cabrillas?
A. Three
(3) times also.
Q. From
the first blow of Benny Cabtalan to the first blow of Adriano Cabrillas, how
long did it take?
A. It just
happened so quickly; as the first one delivered his stab blow the other one
also delivered his stab blow, alternately stabbing the victim.
Q. So,
what happened to Jesus Cabujat?
A. He
asked for help and said: I am wounded, please help me because (I) was stabbed
by Benny Cabtalan and Adriano Cabrillas.
Q. After
he shouted what happened to him.
A. After
that he fell down.
Q. How
about Benny Cabtalan and Adriano Cabrillas, what did they do when Jesus Cabujat
fell down?
A. When
Jesus Cabujat shouted for help, that was the time the two (2) culprits [fled].
Q. To what
direction?
A. To the
route going to a farm.[39]
Jonalyn
corroborated the testimony of Wilfredo on relevant details as follows:
Q. When
you x x x [reached] your house, what did
your lolo do?
A. He went
across the street and urinated there and saw Benny also on the street.
Q. Was
Benny alone?
A. [There]
were two (2) of them.
Q. Do you
recognize the other one?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Who?
A. It was
Adriano.
Q. Do you
know the surname of Benny?
A. Cabtalan.
Q. How
about Adriano, do you know the surname of Adriano?
A. I
cannot remember.
Q. Why do
you know the surname of Benny Cabtalan?
A. Because
my father and his father are cousins.
Benny and my father are cousins.
x x x x
Q. You saw
them also in the street while your lolo was urinating so, what did Benny and
Adriano do at that time?
A. They
held both arms of my grandfather.
x x x x
Q. And
after holding x x x your grandfather, what did Benny do if any?
A. They
suddenly stabbed my lolo.
Q. With
what?
A. It was
a long bolo.[40]
All
told, Jesus was unaware of the imminent peril to his life and was rendered
incapable of defending himself. From the
suddenness of the attack upon Jesus and the manner it was committed, there is
no doubt that treachery indeed attended his killing.
The trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses usually
remains undisturbed.
The trial and appellate courts reached
the same conclusion that the testimonies of eyewitnesses Wilfredo and Jonalyn
deserve credence as both narrated in a straightforward manner the details of
Benny and Adrianos attack upon Jesus. Benny,
however, still disputes the credibility of these witnesses by pointing out that
Wilfredos testimony that he and Adriano took turns in stabbing Jesus differs
from that of Jonalyn who stated that while the two assailants attacked Jesus in
unison, it was only Benny who inflicted the mortal wounds. The Court, however, finds this inconsistency to
pertain merely to the manner the fatal stab wounds were inflicted on
Jesus. The materiality of the assailants
exact position during their attack on the victim is a trivial and insignificant
detail which cannot defeat the witnesses positive identification of Benny as
one of the assailants. Besides, [i]t is
perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a
crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness
may notice while the other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence even warns against a
perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that
their testimonies were [fabricated] and rehearsed.[41]
Bennys assertion that Wilfredo is
not a credible witness since he surfaced three years after the incident to
testify for the prosecution also fails to impress. It is
worthy to mention that the proceedings in this case was suspended for two years
because Benny and Adriano left Pinabacdao, Samar and the warrant for their
arrest could not be served on them.
Also, deference or reluctance in reporting a crime does not destroy the
truth of the charge nor is it an indication of deceit. Delay in reporting a crime or an unusual
incident in a rural area is well-known.[42] It is common for a witness to prefer
momentary silence for fear of reprisal from the accused.[43] The fact remains that Wilfredo fulfilled his
duty as a good member of society by aiding the family of Jesus when they were seeking
justice. In the absence of other
circumstances that would show that the charge was a mere concoction and that Wilfredo
was impelled by some evil motives, delay in testifying is insufficient to
discredit his testimony.
The fact that Wilfredo and Jonalyn
are related to the victim also does not diminish their credibility. While admittedly, Wilfredo is a relative of
the husband of Julita, who is the daughter of Jesus, and Jonalyn is Jesuss
granddaughter, relationship per se
does not evince ulterior motive nor does it ipso
facto tarnish the credibility of witnesses.[44] Mere relationship to a party cannot militate
against the credibility of witnesses or be taken as destructive of the
witnesses credibility.[45] What matters is that Wilfredo and Jonalyn positively
identified Benny and Adriano as the assailants of Jesus and that they testified
in a straightforward manner. These
indicate that the two are telling the truth.
As
to the inconsistencies in Elenas testimony and in her affidavit as to who
asked her father the identity of the assailants, the same deserves scant
consideration. It is settled that affidavits
or statements taken ex parte are generally
considered incomplete and inaccurate.
Thus, by nature, they are inferior to testimony given in court, and
whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a
witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[46] The trial court therefore did not err in
affording more credence to Elenas testimony given in open court despite her
having previously executed an affidavit which was inconsistent with her
testimony. To stress, appellate courts
do not disturb the findings of the trial courts with regard to the assessment
of credibility of witnesses. The reason
for this is that trial courts have the unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under
grilling examination.[47]
Bennys defense of alibi was properly rejected.
Alibi is the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[48] For this defense to prosper, proof that the accused was in a different place at the time the crime was committed is insufficient. There must be evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be within the immediate vicinity of the crime during its commission.[49]
Here,
Benny did not satisfactorily demonstrate that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the locus criminis at
the night of its commission. While he
denies being at the scene of the crime when it happened, he claims to be within
a reasonably near area which is his residence in Barangay Pilaon.[50] The murder of Jesus occurred in Barangay Laygayon, which is more or less
3 kilometers away from the place where Benny claimed he was in.[51] Benny testified that the distance between
these two barangays can be covered in
an hours walk.[52] Thus, even if he traveled by foot to another barangay, it was still not too far away
to render it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time
of its commission. Furthermore, Bennys
alibi is uncorroborated. Courts may
give credence to alibi only if there are credible eyewitnesses who can
corroborate the alibi of accused.[53] In contrast, alibi becomes weaker in the face
of the positive identification made by the witnesses for the prosecution, as in
this case.[54]
Benny cannot escape liability by imputing the crime to Adriano.
Bennys assertion that Adriano was
solely responsible for the murder of Jesus is likewise undeserving of
consideration. Such a claim is common among
conspirators in their veiled attempt to
escape complicity. It is a desperate
strategy to compensate for a weak defense.
We are not readily influenced by such a proposition since its obvious
motive is to distort the truth and frustrate the ends of justice.[55]
Besides, it is the victim himself
who pointed to Benny as one of his assailants.
Such statement of Jesus before his death is a dying declaration that is admissible
in evidence against Benny.[56] A dying declaration is an evidence of the
highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on the premise that no x x
x person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false
accusation. At the brink of death, all
thoughts on concocting lies disappear.[57]
All told, the Court finds no reason
to depart from the judgment of conviction rendered against Benny by the trial
court and affirmed by the CA.
The Penalty
and Award of Damages
When the circumstance of abuse of
superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the
latter.[58] Hence, the trial court should have no longer
considered the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. And there being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance in this case, the proper penalty therefore is reclusion perpetua, it being the lesser penalty between the two
indivisible penalties for the crime of murder which is reclusion perpetua to
death.[59] Hence, we agree with the CA when it imposed
upon Benny the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. In addition, Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 9346[60]
provides:
Section 3. Persons convicted of offenses punishable with
reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act
No. 4103 otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
Pursuant to the above provision,
Benny is therefore not eligible for parole.
As to the award of damages, the
heirs are entitled to the following awards when death occurs due to a crime: (1)
civil indemnity ex delicto for the
death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4)
exemplary damages; and, (5) temperate damages.[61]
Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00
is mandatory and is granted without need of evidence other than the commission
of the crime.[62] Hence, the Court modifies the civil indemnity
awarded by the CA from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. We likewise increase the award for moral
damages from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with the
latest jurisprudence on the matter. Moral
damages in the sum of P50,000.00 shall be awarded despite the absence of
proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims heirs.[63] As borne out by human nature and experience,
a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and
anguish on the part of the victims family.[64] Moreover and with the finding of the
qualifying circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages is correctly awarded
but only in the amount of P30,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[65]
As regards actual damages, Jesuss
daughter Julita testified that they spent P18,500.00 for burial and
funeral expenses, though she was unable to present receipts to substantiate her
claim. Where the amount of actual
damages for funeral expenses cannot be ascertained due to the absence of
receipts to prove them, temperate damages in the sum of P25,000.00 may
be granted, as it is hereby granted, in lieu thereof.[66] This award is adjudicated so that a right
which has been violated may be recognized or vindicated, and not for the
purpose of indemnification.[67]
The trial court and the appellate
court are unanimous in not awarding loss of earning capacity to the heirs of
Jesus for lack of basis. There was no error
on their part since there was no documentary evidence to substantiate this
claim. The testimony that Jesus earned P1,000.00
a week can be used as basis for granting such an award only if he is either
(1) self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws,
and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in [his] line of work no
documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker
earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[68] Here, the prosecution did not offer proof that
would determine whether Jesus was self-employed or a daily-wage earner. Thus, the exceptions to the rule cannot be
applied in this case.[69]
The
heirs of Jesus are also entitled to an interest on all the awards of damages at
the legal rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully
paid.[70]
WHEREFORE,
the Decision dated P75,000.00
as civil indemnity; (2) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P 30,000.00
as exemplary damages; (4) P 25,000.00 as temperate damages; and (5)
interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the
finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] CA
rollo, pp. 134-139; penned by
Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon and concurred in by Associate Justices
Pampio A. Abarintos and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla.
[2] Records,
pp. 104-118; penned by Presiding Judge Carmelita T. Cuares.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN
dated
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] TSN
dated
[20]
[21] Records,
p. 10.
[22] TSN,
[23]
[24] TSN,
[25]
[26] TSN,
[27] Supra
note 2.
[28] Records,
p. 115.
[29]
[30]
[31] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87,
[32] Supra
note 1.
[33] CA
rollo, p. 137
[34]
[35]
[36] Art.
248. Murder. Any person who, not
falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
1.
With
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity;
2.
In
consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
3.
By
means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
4.
On
occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of
an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or other
public calamity;
5.
With
evident premeditation;
6.
With
cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim,
or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
[37] Revised Penal Code, Article 14(16).
[38] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353,
February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738, 747; People
v. Amazan, 402 Phil. 247, 264 (2001).
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] People v. Lacbayan, 393 Phil. 800, 807
(2000).
[42] Gorospe v. People, 466 Phil. 206, 215
(2004) citing People v. Belon, G.R.
No. 87759, February 26, 1991, 194 SCRA 447, 457.
[43]
[44] People v. Vicente, 423 Phil. 1065, 1075
(2001).
[45] People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 84391,
[46] People v. Antonio, 390 Phil. 989, 1007.
(2000).
[47] People v. Cias, G.R. No. 194379,
[48] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173477,
[49]
[50] TSN,
[51]
[52]
[53] People v. Sumalinog, Jr., 466 Phil. 637,
650 (2004).
[54] People v. Bonifacio, 426 Phil. 511, 521
(2002).
[55] People v. Macaliag, 392 Phil. 284, 299
(2000).
[56] Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 37
provides:
Sec. 37. Dying declaration. The declaration of a dying person, made under
the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein
his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.
[57] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 188610,
[58] People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551,
[59] Art.
63. Rules for the application of
indivisible penalties. x x x
In all cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties the following rules
shall be observed in the application thereof:
x x x x
2. When there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty
shall be applied.
x x x x
[60] AN
ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
[61] People v. Asis, G.R. No. 177573,
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65] People v. Abao, G.R. No. 188323,
[66] People v. Asis, supra note 61 at 531.
[67] People v. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315,
[68] People v. Asis, supra note 61 at 532,
citing People v. Mallari, 452 Phil.
210, 225. (2003).
[69]
[70]