Full Text Compiliation Evidence

8/10/2019 Full Text Compiliation Evidence

1/95

G.R. No. 96405 June 26, 1996

BALDOMERO INCIONG, JR., petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEAL !n" P#ILIPPINE BAN$ OF COMMUNICATION, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:p

This is a petition for review oncertiorariof the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Courtof Misamis Oriental, Branch 18,1which disposed of Civil Case o. 1!"!# for collection of a sum of mone$ anddamages, as follows%

&'(R()OR(, defendant BA*+OM(RO *. CO-, R. is ad/udged solidaril$ lia0le and orderedto pa$ to the plaintiff hilippine Ban2 of Communications, Caga$an de Oro Cit$, the amount of))T3 T'O45A+ (5O5 6"!,!!!.!!7, with interest thereon from Ma$ ", 189 at 1:;perannumuntil full$ paid< and :;per annumon the total amount due, as li=uidated damages orpenalt$ from Ma$ ", 189 until full$ paid< plus 1!; of the total amount due for e>penses of litigationand attorne$?s fees< and to pa$ the costs.

The counterclaim, as well as the cross claim, are dismissed for lac2 of merit.

5O OR+(R(+.

etitioner?s lia0ilit$ resulted from the promissor$ note in the amount of "!,!!!.!! which he signed with Rene C. a$0eand -regorio +. antanosas on )e0ruar$ 9, 189, holding themselves /ointl$ and severall$ lia0le to private respondenthilippine Ban2 of Communications, Caga$an de Oro Cit$ 0ranch. The promissor$ note was due on Ma$ ", 189.

5aid due date e>pired without the promissors having paid their o0ligation. Conse=uentl$, on ovem0er 1@, 189 and onune 8, 18@, private respondent sent petitioner telegrams demanding pa$ment thereof.2On +ecem0er 11, 18@private respondent also sent 0$ registered mail a final letter of demand to Rene C. a$0e. 5ince 0oth o0ligors did notrespond to the demands made, private respondent filed on anuar$ @, 18: a complaint for collection of the sum of"!,!!!.!! against the three o0ligors.

On ovem0er ", 18:, the complaint was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the case. 'owever, onanuar$ , 18#, the lower court reconsidered the dismissal order and re=uired the sheriff to serve the summonses. Onanuar$ #, 18#, the lower court dismissed the case against defendant antanosas as pra$ed for 0$ the privaterespondent herein. Meanwhile, onl$ the summons addressed to petitioner was served as the sheriff learned thatdefendant a$0e had gone to 5audi Ara0ia.

n his answer, petitioner alleged that sometime in anuar$ 189, he was approached 0$ his friend, Rud$ Campos, whotold him that he was a partner of io Tio, the 0ranch manager of private respondent in Caga$an de Oro Cit$, in thefalcata logs operation 0usiness. Campos also intimated to him that Rene C. a$0e was interested in the 0usiness andwould contri0ute a chainsaw to the venture. 'e added that, although a$0e had no mone$ to 0u$ the e=uipment, ioTio had assured a$0e of the approval of a loan he would ma2e with private respondent. Campos then persuaded

petitioner to act as a coma2er in the said loan. etitioner allegedl$ acceded 0ut with the understanding that onl$ 0e a coma2er for the loan of "!,!!!.!!.

etitioner alleged further that five 6"7 copies of a 0lan2 promissor$ note were 0rought to him 0$ Campos at hisaffi>ed his signature thereto 0ut in one cop$, he indicated that he 0ound himself onl$ for the amount of ",!!!it was 0$ tric2er$, fraud and misrepresentation that he was made lia0le for the amount of "!,!!!.!!.

n the aforementioned decision of the lower court, it noted that the t$pewritten figure "!,!!! clearl$ appedirectl$ 0elow the admitted signature of the petitioner in the promissor$ note.%'ence, the latter?s uncorro0oratetestimon$ on his limited lia0ilit$ cannot prevail over the presumed regularit$ and fairness of the transaction, un6=7 of Rule 191. The lower court added that it was rather odd for petitioner to have indicated in a cop$ and nooriginal, of the promissor$ note, his supposed o0ligation in the amount of ",!!!.!! onl$. )inall$, the lower cothat, even granting that said limited amount had actuall$ 0een agreed upon, the same would have 0een merel$collateral 0etween him and a$0e and, therefore, not 0inding upon the private respondent as creditor0an2.

The lower court also noted that petitioner was a holder of a Bachelor of *aws degree and a la0or consultant wsupposed to ta2e due care of his concerns, and that, on the witness stand, io Tio denied having participated alleged 0usiness venture although he 2new for a fact that the falcata logs operation was encouraged 0$ the 0ae>port potential.

etitioner appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals which, in its decision of August 91, 1!, affirmethe lower court. 'is motion for reconsideration of the said decision having 0een denied, he filed the instant petreview on certiorari.

On )e0ruar$ :, 11, the Court denied the petition for failure of petitioner to compl$ with the Rules of Court an

paragraph of Circularo. 188, and to sufficientl$ show that respondent court had committed an$ reversi0le error in its =uestioneddecision.4'is motion for the reconsideration of the denial of his petition was li2ewise denied with finalit$ in theResolution of April @, 11.5Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsidwhich, in the Resolution of Ma$ #, 11, the Court denied. n the same Resolution, the Court ordered the ent/udgment in this case.6

4nfaDed, petitioner filed a notion for leave to file a motion for clarification. n the latter motion, he asserted thatattached Registr$ Receipt o. 9:8 to page 1@ of the petition in compliance with Circular o. 188. Thus, on A11, the Court granted his pra$er that his petition 0e given due course and reinstated the same.&

onetheless, we find the petition unmeritorious.

Anne>ed to the petition is a cop$ of an affidavit e>ecuted on Ma$ 9, 188, or after the rendition of the decision

lower court, 0$ -regorio antanosas, r., an MTCC /udge and petitioner?s coma2er in the promissor$ note. t petitioner?s allegation that the$ were induced to sign the promissor$ note on the 0elief that it was onl$ for ",!adding that it was Campos who caused the amount of the loan to 0e increased to "!,!!!.!!.

The affidavit is clearl$ intended to 0uttress petitioner?s contention in the instant petition that the Court of Appeahave declared the promissor$ note null and void on the following grounds% 6a7 the promissor$ note was signedoffice of udge antanosas, outside the premises of the 0an2< 607 the loan was incurred for the purpose of 0u$secondhand chainsaw which cost onl$ ",!!!.!!< 6c7 even a new chainsaw would cost onl$ #,"!!.!!< 6d7 twas not approved 0$ the 0oard or credit committee which was the practice, as it e>ceeded ",!!!.!!< 6e7 the

1' a g e


2/95

no collateral< 6f7 petitioner and udge antanosas were not present at the time the loan was released in contravention ofthe 0an2 practice, and 6g7 notices of default are sent simultaneousl$ and separatel$ 0ut no notice was validl$ sent tohim.()inall$, petitioner contends that in signing the promissor$ note, his consent was vitiated 0$ fraud as, contrar$ totheir agreement that the loan was onl$ for the amount of ",!!!.!!, the promissor$ note stated the amount of"!,!!!.!!.

The a0ovestated points are clearl$ factual. etitioner is to 0e reminded of the 0asic rule that this Court is not a trier offacts. 'aving lost the chance to full$ ventilate his factual claims 0elow, petitioner ma$ no longer 0e accorded the sameopportunit$ in the a0sence of grave a0use of discretion on the part of the court 0elow. 'ad he presented udgeantanosas affidavit 0efore the lower court, it would have strengthened his claim that the promissor$ note did not reflectthe correct amount of the loan.

or is there merit in petitioner?s assertion that since the promissor$ note is not a pu0lic deed with the formalitiesprescri0ed 0$ law 0ut . . . a mere commercial paper which does not 0ear the signature of . . . attesting witnesses, parolevidence ma$ overcome the contents of the promissor$ note.9The first paragraph of the parol evidence rule10states%

&hen the terms of an agreement have 0een reduced to writing, it is considered as containing allthe terms agreed upon and there can 0e, 0etween the parties and their successors in interest, noevidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

Clearl$, the rule does not specif$ that the written agreement 0e a pu0lic document.

&hat is re=uired is that the agreement 0ein writingas the rule is in fact founded on long e>perience that writtenevidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memor$ onl$, that it would 0e unsafe,when parties have e>pressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit wea2er evidence to control and var$ the

stronger and to show that theparties intended a different contract from that e>pressed in the writing signed 0$ them.11Thus, for the parol evidencerule to appl$, a written contract need not 0e in an$ particular form, or 0e signed 0$ 0oth parties.12As a general rule,0ills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not su0/ect to 0e varied or contradicted 0$ parol or e>trinsicevidence. 1%

B$ alleging fraud in his answer, 14petitioner was actuall$ in the right direction towards proving that he and his coma2ersagreed to a loan of ",!!!.!! onl$ considering that, where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the inducing andmoving cause of the written contract, it ma$ 0e shown 0$ parol evidence.15'owever, fraud must 0e esta0lished 0$ clearand convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence, not even 0eing ade=uate.16etitioner?s attempt to provefraud must, therefore, fail as it was evidenced onl$ 0$ his own uncorro0orated and, e>pectedl$, selfserving testimon$.

etitioner also argues that the dismissal of the complaint against a$0e, the principal de0tor, and against antanosas,his coma2er, constituted a release of his o0ligation, especiall$ 0ecause the dismissal of the case against antanosas

was upon the motion of private respondent itself. 'e cites as 0asis for his argument, Article !8! of the Civil Code whichprovides that%

The guarantors, even though the$ 0e solidar$, are released from their o0ligation whenever 0$some act of the creditor, the$ cannot 0e su0rogated to the rights, mortgages, and preferences ofthe latter.

t is to 0e noted, however, that petitioner signed the promissor$ note as a solidar$ coma2er and not as a guarantor. Thisis patent even from the first sentence of the promissor$ note which states as follows%

inet$ one 617 da$s after date, for value received, Ewe, OT*3 and 5(F(RA**3 prompa$ to the '*( BAG O) COMM4CATO5 at its office in the Cit$ of Caga$anhilippines the sum of ))T3 T'O45A+ O*3 6"!,!!!.!!7 esos, hilippine Currenctogether with interest . . . at the rate of 5HT(( 61:7 per centper annumuntil full$ paid.

A solidar$ or /oint and several o0ligation is one in which each de0tor is lia0le for the entire o0ligation, and eachis entitled to demand the whole o0ligation.1& on the other hand, Article !@# of the Civil Code states%

B$ guarant$ a person, called the guarantor, 0inds himself to the creditor to fulfill the o0ligathe principal de0tor in case the latter should fail to do so .

f a person 0inds himself solidaril$ with the principal de0tor, the provisions of 5ection @, CTitle of this Boo2 shall 0e o0served. n such a case the contract is called a suret$ship. 6(supplied.7

&hile a guarantor ma$ 0ind himself solidaril$ with the principal de0tor, the lia0ilit$ of a guarantor is dfrom that of a solidar$ de0tor. Thus, Tolentino e>plains%

A guarantor who 0inds himself

in solidumwith the principal de0tor under the provisions of second paragraph does not 0ecome a solidar$ code0tor t o all intents and purposes. Thedifference 0etween a solidar$ code0tor and afiador in solidum6suret$7. The latter, outsidelia0ilit$ he assumes to pa$ the de0t 0efore the propert$ of the principal de0tor has 0een eretains all the other rights, actions and 0enefits which pertain to him 0$ reason of thefiansaa solidar$ code0tor has no other rights than those 0estowed upon him in 5ection @, ChapTitle , Boo2 F of the Civil Code.1(

5ection @, Chapter 9, Title , Boo2 F of the Civil Code states the law on /oint and several o0ligations. 4nder Athereof, when there are two or more de0tors in one and the same o0ligation, the presumption is that the o0liga/oint so that each of the de0tors is lia0le onl$ f or a proportionate part of the de0t. There is a solidar$ lia0ilit$ onthe o0ligation e>pressl$ so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the o0ligation so re=uires.19

Because the promissor$ note involved in this case e>pressl$ states that the three signatories therein arejointly severally liable, an$ one, some or all of them ma$ 0e proceeded against for the entire o0ligation.20The choice the solidar$ creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection.21Conse=uentl$, the dismissal of the against udge ontanosas ma$ not 0e deemed as having discharged petitioner from lia0ilit$ as well. As regardsuffice it to sa$ that the court never ac=uired /urisdiction over him. etitioner, therefore, ma$ onl$ have recourshis coma2ers, as provided 0$ law.

&'(R()OR(, the instant petition for review oncertiorariis here0$ +((+ and the =uestioned decision of the

Appeals is A))RM(+. Costs against petitioner.

5O OR+(R(+.

' a g e


3/95

G.R. No. 10&%&2 J!nu!)* 2%, 199&

RAFAEL . ORTA+E, petitioner,vs.T#E COURT OF APPEAL, OCAR INOCENTE AND AUNCION LLANE INOCENTE, respondents.

R ( 5 O * 4 T O

FRANCICO, J.:

On 5eptem0er 9!, 18, private respondents sold to petitioner two 67 parcels of registered land in IueDon Cit$ for aconsideration of 9",!!!.!! and !, !!!.!!, respectivel$. The first deed of a0solute sale covering Transfer Certificateof Title 6TCT7 o. "8:8 provides in part%

That for and in consideration of the sum of T'RT3 )F( T'O45A+ 69",!!!.!!7 (5O5,receipt of which in full is here0$ ac2nowledged,we have sold, transferred and conveyed, as wehereby sell, transfer and convey, that su0divided portion of the propert$ covered 0$ TCT o."8:8 2nown as *ot o. :8@-1B in favor of RA)A(* 5. ORTAJ(K, of legal age, )ilipino,whose marriage is under a regime of complete separation of propert$, and a resident of @ AuroraBlvd., IueDon Cit$, his heirs or assigns.1

while the second deed of a0solute sale covering TCT. o. @9#9 provides%

That for and in consideration of the sum of T&(T3 T'O45A+ 6!,!!!.!!7 (5O5 receipt ofwhich in full is here0$ ac2nowledged, we have sold, transferred and conve$ed, as we here0$ sell,transfer and conve$, that consolidatedsu0divided portion of the propert$ covered 0$ TCT o.@9#9 2nown as *ot o. " in favor of RA)A(* 5. ORTA(K, of legal age, )ilipino, whosemarriage is under a regime of complete separation of propert$, and a resident of @ Aurora Blvd.,Cu0ao, IueDon Cit$ his heirs or assigns.2

rivate respondents received the pa$ments for the a0ovementioned lots, 0ut failed to deliver the titles to petitioner. OnApril , 1! the latter demanded from the former the deliver$ of said titles.%rivate respondents, however, refused onthe ground that the title of the first lot is in the possession of another person,4and petitioner?s ac=uisition of the title ofthe other lot is su0/ect to certain conditions.

Offshoot, petitioner sued private respondents for specific performance 0efore the RTC. n their answer with counterclaimprivate respondents merel$ alleged the e>istence of the following oral conditions5which were never reflected in thedeeds of sale%6

9.9. Title to the other propert$ 6TCT o. @9#97 remains with the defendants 6privaterespondents7 until plaintiff 6petitioner7 shows proof that all the following re=uirements have 0eenmet%

6i7 laintiff will cause the segregation of his right of wa$ amounting to 98 s=. m.pressl$ stated that it is su0/ect to an agreement containing the conditionsprecedent which were through parol evidence. &hereas, the deeds of sale in this case, made no reference to an$ preconditions or oagreement. n fact, the sale is denominated as a0solute in its own terms.

Third, the parol evidence herein sought to 0e introduced would var$, contradict or defeat the operation of a vainstrument,16hence, contrar$ to the rule that%

The parol evidence rule for0ids an$ addition to . . . the terms of a written instrument 0$ tepurporting to show that, at or 0efore the signing of the document, other or different terms

orall$ agreed upon 0$ the parties.1&

Although parol evidence is admissi0le to e>plain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpincorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at awriting unless there has 0een fraud or mista2e.1(o such fraud or mista2e e>ists in this case.

)ourth, we disagree with private respondents? argument that their parol evidence is admissi0le under the e>ceprovided 0$ the Rules, specificall$, the alleged failure of the agreement to e>press the true intent of the partiese>ception o0tains onl$ in the following instance%

9' a g e


4/95

L&here the written contract is soambiguous or obscurein terms that the contractual intention ofthe parties cannot 0e understood from a mere reading of the instrument. n such a case, e>trinsicevidence of the su0/ect matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and ofthe facts and circumstances surrounding them when the$ entered into the contract ma$ 0ereceived to ena0le the court to ma2e a proper, interpretation of the instrument.19

n this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without an$ am0iguit$, mista2e or imperfection, much less o0scurit$or dou0t in the terms thereof.

)ifth, we are not persuaded 0$ private respondents? contention that the$ put in issue 0$ the pleadings the failure of thewritten agreement to e>press the true intent of the parties. Record shows20that private respondents did

not

epresslyplead that the deeds of sale were incomplete or that it did not reflect theintention21of the 0u$er 6petitioner7 and the seller 6private respondents7. 5uch issue must 0e, s=uarel$presented.22rivate respondents merel$ alleged that the sale was su0/ect to four 6@7 conditions which the$ tried toprove during trial 0$ parol evidence.2%O0viousl$, this cannot 0e done, 0ecause the$ did not plead an$ of the e>ceptionsmentioned in the parol evidence rule.24Their case is covered 0$ the general rule that the contents of the writing are theonl$ repositor$ of the terms of the agreement. Considering that private respondent Oscar nocentes is a law$er 6andformer /udge7 he was supposed to 0e steeped in legal 2nowledge and practices and was e>pected to 2now theconse=uences25of his signing a deed of a0solute sale. 'ad he given an iota?s attention to scrutiniDe the deeds, hewould have incorporated important stipulations that the transfer of title to said lots were conditional.26

One last thing, assumingarguendothat the parol evidence is admissi0le, it should nonetheless 0e dis0elieved as noother evidence appears from the record to sustain the e>istence of the alleged conditions. ot even the other seller,Asuncion nocentes, was presented to testif$ on such conditions.

ACCOR+-*3, the appealed decision is R(F(R5(+ and the records of this case R(MA+(+ to the trial court forproper disposition in accordance with this ruling.

5O OR+(R(+.

@' a g e


5/95


6/95

G.R. No. L1((5& Dee/e) 11, 196&

T#E CAPITAL INURANCE !n" URET CO., INC.,plaintiffappellant,vs.ETEBAN M. ADANG !n" MARIA LAC#ICA, defendantsappellees.

)chacoso, !campo and Simbulan for plaintiff*appellant%L% )lba for defendants*appellees%

MA$ALINTAL, J.:

The following statement of facts, reproduced from the 0rief for plaintiffappellant, the Capital nsurance 5uret$ Co., nc.,is admitted as correct 0$ defendantsappellees%

laintiff Capital nsurance N 5uret$ Co., nc., su0scri0ed on une 1, 1"@ to a 0ond 6(>hi0it A7 in the amountof @,!!!.!! in 0ehalf of Mateo into and in favor of the Macondra$ )arms, nc., the purpose of which wasto guarantee the pa$ment of rentals of the fishpond and other o0ligations of Mateo into as contained in thelease agreement mar2ed as (>hi0it A1.lawphil%net

To protect the interest of plaintiff Capital nsurance N 5uret$ Co., nc. from an$ lia0ilit$ that ma$ arise from thea0ovementioned 0ond, Mateo into and the defendants in this case, (ste0an M. 5adang and Maria *achica,e>ecuted an idemnit$ agreement 6(>hi0it B7 and a deed of real of real estate mortage 6(>hi0it C7 on thepropert$ of the defendants located in the rovince of ueva FiDca$a and covered 0$ Transfer Certificate ofTitle o. 1: issued 0$ the Register of +eeds of ueva FiDca$a.

Mateo into failed to pa$ the rentals of the leased fishpond to Macondra$ )arms, nc., in the total amount of@,::8.89.1

Because of the failure of Mateo into to pa$ the said amount of @,::8.89 to Macondra$ )arms, nc.,plaintiff in the instant case as suret$ had to pa$, as it did pa$ Macondra$ )arms, nc., the amount of@,::8.89 on Ma$ 1@, 1": to settle the o0ligation of Mateo into with the said Macondra$ )arms, nc.

otwithstanding repeated demands, Mateo into and his indemnitors including herein defendants failed toreim0urse the Capital nsurance N 5uret$ Co., nc., the the said amount of @,:88.89.

Because of such failure to ma2e reim0ursement, the Capital nsurance N 5uret$ Co., nc., filed Civil Case o.9!!:1 against Mateo into and his indemnitors including the defendants in this instant case for the collection

of the a0ovementioned amount.

On the strength of the agreement of the parties Civil Case o. 9!!:1 6(>hi0it (7 wherein it is agreed amongothers, that if after the sale of all the said properties, the /udment shall not have 0een full$ satisfied, thenplaintiff ma$ file as separate civil action against the defendantsspouses, (ste0an M. 5adang and Maria*achica, the other indemnitors, 0ut at the same time dismissed the case against the herein defendantswithout pre/udice 6(>hi0it )17.

Two e>ecutions were issued 0$ the court for the enforcement of the a0ovementioned decision in Co. 9!!:1 and after appl$ing the proceeds of the sale of the properties in pu0lic auction there is stildeficienc$ in the amount of 1@,@":.@@ which, in view of the failure of the herein dependants to pa$plaintiff?s repeated demands, had to 0ecome the su0/ect of this instant case.

t is the contention of plaintiff that 0$ virtue of the indemnit$ agreement 6(>hi0it B7 and the estate m6e>hi0it C7 of the herein defendants, the$ are lia0le for the said deficienc$ of 1@,@":.@@, plus intereattorne$?s feest and costs of the suit.itc*alfOn the other hand, defendants contend that their lia0ilit$ mortgage contract 6(>hi0it C7 is limited to the first !,!!!.!! that might 0e incurred under the 0ondsince Mateo into actuall$ paid Macondra$ )arms, nc., the amount of 1,#!!.!!, the$ are lia0le toamount of 9!!.!! which remain after deducting what was paid 0$ Mateo into to Macondra$ )arm

from the first lia0ilit$ of !,!!!.!!.

After due hearing, the t rial court rendered /udgment on April !, 1:1 6pp. 91!1, Record on Appeaordering defendants to pa$ to plaintiff onl$, the amount of 9!!.!! and without costs.

To point on which the parties disagree is the interpretation of the following stipulation in the mortgage contract0$ defendantsappellees%

This mortgage is constituted to indemnif$ the mortgagee for an$ damage, cost, e>penses and chargwhatever 2ind and nature that it ma$ incur or sustain as a conse=uence of having acted as suret$ o0ond referred to a0ove, and or its su0stitution, modification, alteration, change andEor renewals. Thasecured 0$ the a0ove properties is limited to the first !,!!!.!! that might 0e incurred under the 0issued in favor of the Macondra$ )arms, nc.

Appellant la$s stress on the general statement of appellees? lia0ilit$ as it appears in the contract, to wit< to indmortgagee for an$ damage, cost, e>penses and charges of whatever 2ind and nature that it ma$ incur or sustconse=uence of having acted as suret$ or the 0ond. . . . 5imilar stress is laid on the fact that 0ecause the prinde0tor, Mateo into, paid to Macondra$ )arms, nc., the sum of 1,#!!.!! 0efore he 0ecame in default, no lever attached to appellant under its 0ond for that amount, and hence it should not 0e considered as part of, orto, the first !,!!!.!! that might 0e incurred under the 0ond . . ., which defined the limit of appellees? o0liga

At first 0lush the argument seems logical. But the real intention of the parties is revealed 0$ the testimon$ of a(ste0an 5adang concerning the circumstances which led to the inclusion of the particular stipulation afore=uo=uote from the record%lawphil%net

I. n the course of $our testimon$ in the last hearing $ou mentioned that there have 0een two cmortgage prepared in connection with this propert$ 0elonging to $ou and situated in ueva FiDca$a also stated that the first draft or first cop$ of the +eed of contract was not signed 0$ 3ou.itc*alf&ill $ostate to the Court the reason for not signing the first deed of mortgage that was presented to $ou fosignature

A. &hen Mr. into 0rought me to the Capital nsurance Compan$ was permitted to see the wrdocument prepared 0$ Att$. Achacoso with Att$. era as his companion and in the presence of one,mestiDo who was supposed to 0e the manager of the Bonding +epartment. At that time, was madeunderstand that if would consent to 0e one of the 0ondsmen would onl$ answer to the first !,!the total @,!!!.!! 0ond which the Capital nsurance was supposed to underwrite to Mateo into iMacondra$ )arms and told Att$.lawphil%netAchacoso in the presence of the mestiDo the then Mana

:' a g e


7/95

the Bonding +epartment that was onl$ supposed to answer to the first !,!!!.!! of the total 0ondinde0tedness of @,!!!.!!. That the moment the first !,!!!.!! is paid the 0onding compan$automaticall$ releases m$ responsi0ilit$ to them.

I. 5howing to $ou again this (>hi0it C for the plaintiff, is this the second draft or second contract that wasprepared 0$ Mr. Achacoso after $ou have made that interview in clarif$ing in so far as lia0ilit$ with the 0ond isconcerned

6&itness loo2ing at (>hi0it C7

A. 3es, this last letter was the one inserted, That the lia0ilit$ secured 0$ the a0ove properties is limited tothe first !,!!!.!! that might 0e incurred under the 0ond issued in favor of the Macondra$ )arms, nc.

I. n the first draft of the contract of mortgage that was sought to 0e signed 0$ $ou do $ou mean then thatthis last three lines of the second paragraph of page of (>hi0it 9 did not e>ist

A. t did not and so insisted it should 0e specificall$ mentioned that was answera0le onl$ to the first!,!!!.!!.

I. &ho made $ou understand that

A. Att$. Achaeoso in fact Att$. era was present including that mestiDo.

I. &hat did Mr. Achacoso e>plain to $ou as to the e>tend of the lia0ilit$ of the propert$ on the last three

lines of the second page of (>hi0it C

A. 'e emphaticall$ informed me that when that lia0ilit$ will 0e paid ma$ free me to some connectedlia0ilit$ with the other 0ondsmen and he said, it is ver$ clear. 5o consented to sign with m$ wife.

The foregoing testimon$ is clear enough. (ste0an 5adang agreed to 0e an indemnitor onl$ on condition that he wouldanswer for the first !,!!!.!! of the total @,!!!.!! 0ond, and that the moment the first !,!!!.!! is paid the0onding compan$ automaticall$ releases m$ responsi0ilit$ to them. The trial court found the said testimon$ to 0euncontradicted. f the mortgage contract as actuall$ drafted seems to 0e vague or am0iguous, the dou0t must 0eresolved against appellant, whose law$er prepared the document, and in accordance with the real intention of theparties as e>plained 0$ defendantsappellees.

The trial court correctl$ held said defendantsappellants lia0le onl$ for the sum of 9!!.!!. 'owever, it failed to providefor the stipulated interest thereon at the rate of 1;per annum, which if not paid would 0e li=uidated and added to thecapital, =uarterl$, and to order foreclosure of t he mortgaged properties in case of nonpa$ment.

&'(R()OR(, the /udgment appealed from is affirmed, with the modification indicated a0ove concerning interest, thesame to 0egin from the date of the filing of the complaint. n case of nonpa$ment of the sum thus ad/udged, includinginterest, the mortgaged properties will 0e sold as provided in Rule :8. o costs in this instance.

#' a g e


8/95

G.R. No. L%90(& A)3 2&, 19(4

T#E PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINE, plaintiffappellee,vs.ROGELIO DE JEU * UION, !3!7 8ELIONG,8 accusedappellant.

+he Solicitor General for plaintiff*appellee%

afael D% )bierra 'r% for accused*appellant%

CONCEPCION, JR., J.:+.wph!1

The accused, Rogelio de esus $ IuiDon appeals from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court, )irst udicial +istrict inits Criminal Case o. CCC18!, sa0ela 697 finding him guilt$ 0e$ond reasona0le dou0t, of the crime of rape asdefined and penaliDed under Article 99", paragraph of the Revised enal Code and sentencing him, after appreciatingin his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntar$ surrender, to suffer the penalt$ ofreclusion perpetua to indemnif$the offended part$ Clara Mina $ 5imon in the amount of 1!,!!!.!! plus another ",!!!.!! as moral and e>emplar$damages, without su0sidiar$ imprisonment in case of insolvenc$, and to pa$ the costs.

The facts are as follows% t-.%/0hqw1/

Clara Mina, an unmarried woman of 8, lived with her parents in 0arrio Amistad, Alicia, sa0ela 6p.#, tsn., March 1, 1#@7.

Clara Mina, however, is fee0leminded. 5he is una0le to com0 her hair, 0athe herself and wash herclothes 6pp. 1, 91, 9, tsn., March 1, 1#@7. Because of her mental condition, she /ust sta$ed inthe house, doing no household chores 6p. 91, tsn.,2d.7.

The accused, Rogelio de esus, a 1$ear old farmer, who lived in the house of his sister some 1"meters awa$ from the victim?s house, 2new of Clara?s mental infirmit$, and has often seen her leftalone in the house 6p. !, tsn., March 1, 1#@< pp. 98, @#, @, tsn., April ", 1#@7.

At a0out %!! o?cloc2 in the afternoon of an. 9, 1#@, astora 5imon went out to the field in orderto plant pala$, leaving her daughter Clara Mina alone in the house. 'er hus0and 6Clara?s father7,had gone to a place called 5oliven four da$s 0efore, while the other mem0ers of the household had

also left for the field 6pp. 1#, 18, 1, tsn., March 1, 1#@7.

That afternoon, Clara Mina was seated on top of a trun2 when Rogelio de esus suddenl$ enteredthe house, carried her in his arms and laid her on the floor 6pp. 8, 19, tsn., March 1, 1#@7.O0/ecting to what was 0eing done to her, Clara gave an outcr$ MadiP MadiP 6which translatedmeans don?t li2eP don?t li2eP7 Rogelio, ignoring her cries, removed her panties as well as hisown trousers. 'e la$ on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and performed the se>ual act6pp. #, 8, , 19,1@, 1", tsn.,2d.7.

Meanwhile, astora 5imon, who had alread$ wal2ed some 1"! meters awa$ from their howhen sensing it was a0out to rain, hurried 0ac2 to the house to get cellophane with whichher from the rain 6p. 1#, tsn., March 1, 1#@7. 4pon her return to the house, she found Resus na2ed l$ing on top of Clara Mina whose legs were spread apart 6p. 1, tsn.,2d.7. 5eethem in that position, she rushed to the 2itchen to get a clu0 0ut Rogelio spotted her and 6p. !, tsn.,2d.7.

The 0arrio captain, -licerio -uDman, to whom astora 5imon had immediatel$ reported tincident, loo2ed for Rogelio 0ut failed to locate him 6p. !, tsn., March 1, 1#@< pp. 1!, March , 1#@7.

Returning from the 0arrio captain?s house, astora 5imon investigated Clara, who revealethat she was carried awa$ from the trun2 where she was seated, then forci0l$ laid on the have se>ual intercourse with Rogelio 6pp. !, 1, tsn., March 1, 1#@7.

The ne>t da$ Q anuar$ @, 1#@ Q Clara Mina, accompanied 0$ her parents, denouncedde esus to the police authorities 6p. !, tsn., March , 1#@7. Clara Mina was e>amined)ernando Ba0aran, Municipal 'ealth Officer of (chague, lsa0ela at the 5outhern sa0ela(mergenc$ 'ospital, the municipal health officer of Alicia 0eing then on leave 6p. :, tsn., 1#@7. The medical certificate, (>hi0it C, issued 0$ +r. Ba0aran, shows the following fin

617 h$menal lacerations at 9 o?cloc2, 8 o?cloc2 and 11 o?cloc2.

67 vagina admits one finger wi th ease. Two fingers with difficult$.

697 fresh perineal a0rasion.

6@7 smear, not done due to lac2 of microscope.

6"7 contusion Q left temporal area. *esions to heal within one wee2. 6p. 9, Record7.

According to +r. Ba0aran, the a0rasions were possi0l$ inflicted the da$ prior to the e>amiand that the contusion on the left temporal area of the girl?s head could have 0een causedher head was pushed against a hard o0/ect 6pp. 11, 1, tsn., March , 1#@7.

5u0se=uentl$, Rogelio de esus was surrendered 0$ his 0rotherinlaw, a councilor to theolice +epartment. 'e e>ecuted an affidavit, (>hi0it + su0scri0ed 0efore Alicia Municip)lor (gipto on anuar$ ", 1#@, admitting that he had se>ual intercourse once with Clara den$ing that he raped her 6p. #, record7.

The accused denied that he had forced the complainant to have se>ual intercourse with him and that he onl$ ihis forefinger inside the complainant?s private parts. 'e testified that he admitted having se>ual intercourse oncomplainant in his affidavit1 0ecause of maltreatment emplo$ed upon him 0$ the /ail guards.

&hile the affidavit e>ecuted 0$ the accused is not admissi0le in evidence for lac2 of evidence showing that theduring the custodial investigation was apprised of his constitutional rights under Art. F, 5ec. !, of the ew

8' a g e


9/95

Constitution, 2still there is sufficient evidence on record that the accused had performed the se>ual act to wit%t-.%/0hqw1/

1. The accused testified that he merel$ inserted his forefinger into the complainant?s vagina to cureher of her mental malad$. The records, however show, from the testimon$ of 0oth the prosecutionand the defense, that the accused laid on top of complainant. f appellant?s purpose was merel$ toinsert his forefinger into the complainant?s vagina, then there is no necessit$ of l$ing on top ofcomplainant.

. Complainant testified, contrar$ to the testimon$ of the accused, that the latter 0rought out hispenis and inserted it into her vagina which pained her a lot.

9. The h$menal lacerations and the fresh perineal a0rasions in complainant?s vagina corro0oratedher testimon$ that t he accused had se>ual intercourse with her.

The accused assailed the competence of the complainant as a witness on the ground that 0eing fee0le minded she isnot a competent witness in contemplation of the rules and therefore her testimon$ should have 0een re/ected 0$ thelower court. That the complainant was fee0leminded and had displa$ed difficult$ in comprehending the =uestionspropounded on her is an undisputed fact. 'owever, there is no showing that she could not conve$ her deas 0$ words orsigns. t appears in the records that complainant gave sufficientl$ intelligent answers to the =uestions propounded 0$the court and the counsels. The court is satisfied that the complainant can perceive and transmit in her own wa$ herown perceptions to others. 5he is a competent witness.

'aving se>ual intercourse with a fee0leminded woman is rape. The offense is descri0ed under paragraph of Article99" of the Revised enal Code, that is, the offender having carnal 2nowledge of a woman deprived of reason. The

Court, in the case of People vs% Daing,%

said%

The offense committed 0$ appellant is rape descri0ed under paragraph of Article 99" of the Revised enal Code, thatis, the offender having carnal 2nowledge of a woman deprived of reason. The deprivation of reason contemplated 0$law does not need to 0e complete. Mental a0normalit$ or deficienc$ is enough. 5o it was held 0$ the 5upreme Court of5pain that a man having carnal 2nowledge of a woman whose mental faculties are not normall$ developed or who issuffering from hemiplegia and mentall$ 0ac2ward or who is an diot commits the crime of rape. ...

Being fee0leminded, complainant is incapa0le of thin2ing and reasoning li2e an$ normal human 0eing and not 0einga0le to thin2 and reason from 0irth as aforesaid, and undou0tedl$ devoid or deficient in those instincts and other mentalfaculties that characteriDe the average and normal mortal, she reall$ has no will that is free and voluntar$ of her owntent of 0eing incapa0le of givingconsent, could 0e gleaned from the fact, as testified to 0$ her mother, that she is una0le to do thesimple tas2s of com0ing her hair and 0athing herself. Thus, even granting it to 0e true, as counselhas insinuated, that complainant had su0mitted to the se>ual act without resistance 6p. Appellant?s Brief7 such cannot 0e construed as consent on her part, so as to preclude it from 0eingrape. ncapa0le of giving consent, she could not thus consent in intelligentl$.5

&'(R()OR(, the appealed decision is A))RM(+ intoto.

' a g e


10/95

G.R. No. 96(4( J!nu!)* 21, 1994

PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINE, plaintiffappellee,vs.ALEJANDRO ALOMON OLPANGO 8ALE8, 8BOET8 !n" FELICIANO CONGE PEPING, accusedappellants.

+he Solicitor General for plaintiff*appellee%

)necio % Guades for accused*appellants%

CRU, J.:

The novel defense in this prosecution for rape is that the ph$sical evidence of the complainant?s violation was causednot 0$ the male organ 0ut 0$ the five fingers of one of the appellants that were thrust into her vagina in anger and notlust. The defense faults the trial /udge for giving credence to the complainant. t avers that her testimon$ should nothave 0een accepted at all 0ecause she is admittedl$ a mental retardate and therefore unrelia0leper se.

These curious arguments will not 0e dismissed out of hand 0$ this Court. The appellants are entitled to 0e heard in theirdefense, no less than the prosecution, although neither part$ is necessaril$ to 0e 0elieved if its evidence falls short ofthe strict standards of the law.

The trial court found that on Octo0er 11, 18#, while 5$lvia 5oria, a!$ear old mental retardate, was wal2ing along the Maharli2a 'i ghwa$ at Casa0ahan, -andara, 5amar, Ale/andro5alomon and )eliciano Conge, who were apparentl$ waiting for her, accosted her and forci0l$ too2 her to thericefield some ten meters awa$. There she was raped 0$ 5alomon with Conge?s assistance. On her wa$ home, she mether 0rother 5enecio, to whom she related her ordeal. The two of them reported her rape to their father. That same night,the famil$ wal2ed the three2ilometer distance to the police station, where Restituto 5oria signed a complaint for therape of his daughter 0$ 5alomon and Conge.15$lvia was medicall$ e>amined at the -andara -eneral 'ospital 0$ +r.5usan Tanseco, who issued the following certificate%2

A ph$sical e>amination has 0een done on Miss 5$lvia 5oria, ! $ears of age, a resident of Brg$.Casa0ahan, -andara, 5amar. .(. showed a single, linear, laceration on the la0ia minora at :%!!o?cloc2 position. There are isolated er$thematous areas on 0oth thighs. There is also the presenceof sand$ particles on the genital area. 5peculum e>am, however, showed negative findings.

Three da$s later, 5alomon and )eliciano could no longer 0e found. t was onl$ after a fourmonth search that the$ werearrested in Aguado, laser, Mas0ate, from where, after 0eing detained there for one month, the$ were ta2en 0ac2 to5amar. %)ollowing a protracted investigation, an information for rape was filed against them on August , 188, with theRegional Trial Court in Cal0a$og Cit $.4

The principal witness for the prosecution was 5$lvia 5oria herself, who recounted in detail the manner of her ravishment0$ 5alomon with the help of his coaccused Conge. 5he descri0ed how she was dragged to the ricefield 0$ the twoaccused and there undressed against her will. As Conge spread and pinned her legs, 5alomon mounted and penetrated

her, although with difficult$ 0ecause she was still a virgin. 5he felt pain in her vagina and something slipper$.could not cr$ out or repel the attac2 0ecause the two were stronger than she and Conge was holding a 0olo.5Arape, 5alomon suc2ed and twisted her nipples and demanded that he suc2 his penis. 'er low mentalit$ wasdemonstrated in her angr$ testimon$ of her refusal% The devil with him, it is not an icedrop.6

The prosecution presented several other witnesses, &including +r. Tanseco, who affirmed her medical certificatcomplainant?s e>amination. On crosse>amination, she declared that the laceration in 5$lvia?s vagina could havcaused 0$ penetration of a 0lunt instrument such as an averagesiDed penis.(

The two accused flatl$ denied the charge against them. Conge swore that on the night in =uestion, 5$lvia arrivhighwa$ and loudl$ demanded a lamp from the people in (pifanio de -uDman?s house. 'e approached her an

there was no lamp to spare, whereupon, as he turned his 0ac2 to leave, she hit him in the nec2 with a piece ofcausing him to stagger. n swift reaction, he caught 5$lvia 0$ the waist and pushed her to the ground and as sthere e>posed 6she was not wearing an$ underwear7, he angril$ shoved his five fingers into her vagina. 5$lviaat the top of her voice. )earing that her relatives might come, he withdrew his hands and immediatel$ left the p

5alomon corro0orated his coaccused. 'e testified that he saw the whole incident, 0eing then a0out threearmawa$ from the highwa$. 10+e -uDman agreed, sa$ing that he was also in the $ard of his house at the time, anhis guitar, when the encounter occurred.11

Both 5alomon and Conge also protested that the$ had not gone to Mas0ate in order to escape as the trial couThe$ pointed out that the$ were in fact investigated 0$ the police the da$ following the alleged incident 0ut no was ta2en against them. 12The truth, the$ said, was that the$ had gone to Mas0ate to 0u$ two horses on instrfrom 5alomon?s father, (pifanio, who had given them 9,!!!.!! for this purpose.1%

udge Ricardo A. avidad dis0elieved the accused and found them guilt$ as charged. As conspirators, the$ wsentenced to reclusion perpetuaand held solidaril$ lia0le to the complainant for 9!,!!!.!! as civil indemnit$,,!!!.!! as moral damages, ",!!!.!! as e>emplar$ damages, and ",!!!.!! as attorne$?s fees. The$ weordered to pa$ the costs.14

n the appellants? 0rief 6incorrectl$ denominated as a etition for Review7, the defense suggests that the testim5$lvia 5oria is flawed 0ecause she is an insane person who was confined at the ational Mental 'ospital a few0efore the alleged incident. 15t is also argued that her testimon$ was fa0ricated at the instance of her father, w0one to pic2 with 5alomon?s father. The appellants insist that their own version of the incident is more plausi0leshould not have 0een re/ected 0$ the trial court in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence in their f

A mental retardate is not for this reason alone dis=ualified from 0eing a witness. As in the case of other witnesacceptance of his testimon$ depends on its nature and credi0ilit$ or, otherwise put, the =ualit$ of his perceptiomanner he can ma2e them 2nown to the court.16Thus, in eople v. -erones,1&the Court accepted the testimonrape victim notwithstanding that she had the mentalit$ of a nine or ten$ear old 0ecause she was a0le to com

her ordeal... clearl$ and consistentl$. n the case of eople vs. Rondina, this Court declared%

The testimon$ of the offended part$ herself was especiall$ telling and credi0le despite theshe was somewhat mentall$ deficient, as the trial court noticed. Although she was reall$ ointelligence, the complainant nevertheless did not forget the harrowing e>perience she suduring that frightful night in the 0ushes when the three men seared her memor$ with the lforced upon her. The tale she narrated in court was not woven out of sheer imagination 0anguish and remem0ered with pain and as plain an unem0ellished as the simple life she l

1!' a g e


11/95

spo2e in forthright language at the trial, it was 0ecause she was spea2ing the truth of that horri0leravishment she could not push out of her mind.

n the case 0efore us, the trial court noted that although 5$lvia?s speech was slurred and it was necessar$ at times toas2 her leading =uestions, her testimon$ was positive, clear, plain, coherent and credi0le. 'er mental condition did notvitiate her credi0ilit$. &e also 0elieve, as we have o0served often enough in man$ cases1(that a woman will note>pose herself to the humiliation of a rape trail, with its attendant pu0licit$ and the mor0id curiosit$ it will arouse, unlessshe has 0een trul$ wronged and see2s atonement for her a0use.

The defense points to a supposed hostilit$ 0etween 5$lvia?s and 5alomon?s respective fathers due to a conflict over apiece of land and the administrative charge (pifanio filed against Restituto when the$ were 0oth teaching at the local

school. t suggests that this was the reason for 5$lvia?s false charge against 5alomon, who has simpl$ 0een caught inthe crossfire, as it were, 0etween Restituto and (pifanio.

The connection is farfetched. t is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring as an engine of malice, especiall$ if it willsu0/ect a daughter to em0arassment and even stigma, as in this case. There is no evidence that 5$lvia?s father is anunnatural parent. Besides, the enmit$ itself is in the view of the Court not deep enough to provo2e the charge, assumingthat Restituto 5oria was willing to use his daughter to falsel$ accuse his enem$?s son. 5ignificantl$, the complaint wasfiled 0$ Restituto against the son and not the father who was his real adversar$.

The lac2 of a finding of spermatoDoa during 5$lvia?s medical e>amination did not conclusivel$ esta0lish an a0sencethereof 0ecause the e>amining doctor simpl$ did not have the necessar$ e=uipment to ma2e a more thoroughreport. 19n fact, she suggested another e>amination at the Cal0a$og -eneral 'ospital.20At an$ rate, we have held thatthe a0sence of spermatoDoa in the complainant?s vagina does not negate the commission of rape< there ma$ 0e a valide>planation for such a0sence, as when the semen ma$ have 0een washed awa$ or when the rapist failed to e/aculate.21

The appellants decr$ the trial /udge?s conclusion that the$ had gone to Mas0ate to escape, 0ut it appears that this wasreall$ their intention. n the first place, it is not true that the$ were investigated 0efore the$ left, for the fact is 5alomon?sfather stopped the investigation on the ground that there was no law$er to represent them.22t is also noted that5alomon used another name in Mas0ate and called himself Bo$et instead of Ale, his real nic2name.2%5alomon andConge traveled from place to place in that province 0ut were not a0le to 0u$ a single horse during the four months thatthe$ were there. nstead, the$ used the 9,!!!.!! 5alomon?s father had given them not onl$ for their dail$ needs 0utalso in dancing and drin2ing, as Conge put it.24&ell indeed has it 0een said that wic2ed flee when no man pursueth0ut the innocent are as 0old as a lion. The appellants? trip to Mas0ate was unmista2a0l$ a flight from /ustice.

And now let us consider the interesting defense of what we ma$ call 5$lvia?s manual rape for lac2 of a moredescriptive term. Admitting the laceration in 5$lvia?s vagina, 5alomon nevertheless maintains that it was caused not 0$his penis 0ut 0$ Conge?s fingers. Conge?s purpose was to punish her and to disa0le her and thus prevent her fromhitting him again.

The trou0le with this defense is that it is too comical for words. t loo2s li2e a 0awd$house s2it featuring a mad avengerand his naught$ fingers. Besides, the two accused and +e -uDman have a confused recollection of how this remar2a0leincident happened, the first perhaps in the annals of hilippine /urisprudence.

Conge declared in his affidavit that 5$lvia hit him onl$ once and then swore on direct e>amination that he was hit twice,whereas 0oth 5alomon +e -uDman swore he was hit onl$ once.255alomon and Conge said that 5$lvia was wearingpants 0ut +e -uDman insisted with e=ual certaint$ that it was a s2irt.265alomon said 5$lvia?s pants were pulled down toher 2nees, 0ut Conge declared that she was completel$ disro0ed, then said the pants came down onl$ to her

an2les.2&Conge first said his fingers were spread when the$ thrust them inside 5$lvia?s vagina 0ut, sensing thcourt?s dis0elief, recanted and said he put his fingers together in the shape of a cone 0efore plunging them int0ared organ.2(

&e are satisfied with the findings of the trial court that the appellants, in conspirac$ with each other, committecrime of rape upon 5$lvia 5oria, with 5alomon actuall$ violating her as Conge helped restrain her while also frher with his 0olo. The crime was committed with force and intimidation, and worse, against a mental retardatefortunatel$ was nevertheless a0le to narrate the details of her outrage. The theor$ of the defense is a0surd. Tcourt was correct in re/ecting it. The assessment of the evidence, especiall$ the credi0ilit$ of the witnesses, is primar$ function of the /udge presiding at the trial. &e defer to the findings of the trial court in the case at 0ar, 0eing no showing that the$ were reached without 0asis.

The Court cannot conclude this opinion without remar2ing on the e>traordinar$ lengths to which an accused wfalsif$ the truth and evade the sanctions of the law. The defense in this case is illustrative of such desperationappellants have not considered is that the Court is not without e>perience in detecting falsehood and should n0een e>pected to 0e deluded 0$ the ridiculous stor$ the$ 0landl$ su0mitted. Counsel should remem0er that gunot one of the traits of this Court.

&'(R()OR(, the appeal is +5M55(+. The decision of the trial court is A))RM(+, e>cept for the award oe>emplar$, and actual damages and attorne$?s fees, which were disallowed. The civil indemnit$ is retained at9!,!!!.!!. Costs against the appellants.

5O OR+(R(+.

11' a g e


12/95

G.R. No. 104461 Fe)u!)* 2%, 1996

PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINE,plaintiffappellee,vs.ROMEO MENDOA * REE !n" JAIME REJALI * LINA, defendantsappellants.

D E C I I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

The main =uestion answered in this case is whether the accused should 0e convicted of highwa$ ro00er$ with homicidepunisha0le under residential +ecree o. "9, or of ro00er$ with homicide under Article @ of the Revised enalCode.

Appellants Romeo MendoDa and aime Re/ali were charged on une 1#, 11 0efore the Regional Trial Court in asig,Metro Manila 6Branch 1":7 of the crime of ROBB(R3 'O*+4 6sic7 with 'OMC+( 6.+. o. "9, Antiirac$ andAnti'ighwat 6sic7 Ro00er$ *aw of 1#@7 1in an nformation which reads as follows%

That on or a0out the th da$ of Ma$ 11, in the municipalit$ of 5an uan, Metro Manila, hilippines, aplace within the /urisdiction of this 'onora0le Court the a0ovenamed accused, armed with gun and 2nives,conspiring and confederating together with onealias ac2 whose true identit$ and present wherea0outs is stillun2nown, and mutuall$ helping and aiding one another with intent to gain and 0$ means of force, violenceand intimidation, did then and there wilfull$, unlawfull$ and feloniousl$ ta2e, ro0 and divest one -lor$ Oropeoof cash mone$ amounting to 9!.!!, while the said victim was a0oard a passenger /eep, cruising along

Aurora Blvd., 5an uan, Metro Manila, which is a hilippine 'ighwa$, to the damage and pre/udice of theowner thereof, in the aforementioned amount of 9!.!!< that on the occasion of said ro00er$ 6holdup7 andfor the purpose of ena0ling them to ta2e, ro0 and carr$ awa$ personal 0elongings of all passengers inpursuance of their criminal act said accused, did then and there wilfull$, unlawfull$ and feloniousl$ attac2,assault and emplo$ personal violence upon the passengers 6sic7 of said passenger /eep, one Ramil$nKulueta 0$ then and there hitting her head with a gun and 2ic2ed 6sic7 her out of the passenger /eep whichcaused her to fall in 6sic7 the pavement hitting her head on the ground, there0$ inflicting upon the latter mortalin/uries which directl$ caused her death, while Ma. -race Kulueta, punching her face and hitting her headwith a gun, as a result of which said Ma. -race Kulueta sustained ph$sical in/uries which re=uired medicalattendance for a period of less than nine 67 da$s and incapacitated her from performing her customar$ la0orfor the same period of time.

COTRAR3 TO *A&.

The records show that 0oth accused were assisted 0$ their counselde oficio, Att$. )ernando )ernandeD of the u0licAttorne$?s Office 6AO7, when the$ pleaded not guilt$ to the charge upon arraignment on August , 11.

3vidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution thereafter esta0lished that on Ma$ , 11, at a0out %!! in the evening, 1#$earold Ma. -raceKulueta and her elder sister, Ma. Ramil$n, were on their wa$ home from their grandparents? house in Altura (>t., 5ta.

Mesa, Manila. The$ 0oarded a passenger / eepne$ 0ound for Cu0ao via Aurora Blvd. The /eepne$ was full$ loathe driver, his wife and two children on the front seat and eight passengers on each of the two parallel 0ac2 se

The Kulueta sisters were seated near t he rear entrance of the /eepne$9with accused Romeo MendoDa seated -race.@t was through MendoDa that -race handed over their fare to the driver as the /eepne$ passed 0$ thecomple>."-lor$ Oropeo 6or *or$ (uropeo:7, who 0oarded the same /eepne$ near the 5top and 5hop 5upermwas seated 0ehind the driver. Accused aime Re/ali was 0eside -lor$ while their companion named ac2, whoremained at large, was seated across her.#

&hen the /eepne$ reached the dar2 portion of Aurora Blvd. in 5an uan, Metro Manila, near 5t. aul?s Collegethe 0ridge and 0efore Broadwa$ Centrum, someone announced a holdup.8Both MendoDa and Re/ali had gun

ac2 was armed with a 2nife. t was Re/ali who fired his gun.

ac2 told the Kulueta sisters that the$ would 0rinsisters along. As the accused appeared drun2, the sisters ignored them. 'owever, a male passenger /umped o/eepne$ and a commotion ensued. erple>ed 6naguluhan7 0$ this turn of events, the accused held Ramil$n wstarted 2ic2ing, tr$ing to e>tricate herself from their grasp. This prompted MendoDa to hit her on the head with 'e 0o>ed and 2ic2ed her, causing Ramil$n to fall out of the /eepne$ into the street where she rolled.1!

MendoDa then held -race 0$ her right arm. As she struggled, -race shouted, bitawan mo a4o, bitawan mo a4oattempt to call the attention of the drivers of the other vehicles on the road. One of the accused hit -race on twith a gun causing her to lose consciousness.1165he finall$ came to at the 5t. *u2e?s 'ospital< she was confinup to une #, 11. 17 &hile all this was happening, Re/ali po2ed his gun at the other passengers.19

)rom -lor$, the accused were a0le to get the amount of 9!.!!. 5he handed it to the holdupper seated in fron&hen the commotion too2 place, the driver slowed down the /eepne$ 0ut the holduppers told him to 2eep on mOne of them ordered the driver to proceed to . RuiD 5t. and ma2e several turns until, when the$ reached ateculprits alighted and made their escape.1@

Ramon Kulueta, the father of -race and Ramil$n, learned a0out the incident from his other daughter, oral$n, informed that -race was at the 5t. *u2e?s 'ospital. -race, who was then a student emplo$ed at the iDDa 'ut9,!!!.!! a month, was confined in said hospital from Ma$ 9! to une #, 11 for head trauma< she had contand hematomas on the left temporal region and on the right occipitoparietal and anterior temporal regions, ana0rasions on the supra or0ital area as well as el0ow.1"Ramon Kulueta spent around 1,!!!.!! for -race?shospitaliDation. 1:

4pon learning from -race that Ramil$n had 0een with her, Ramon Kulueta surmised that she might have 0eento the hospital nearer the place of the incident, the 4(RM hospital. &hen he got there, he learned that Ramil$$ears old and a computer management student, had alread$ died of severe, traumatic head in/uries.1#The Kulufamil$ spent around 1",!!!.!! for her interment.18

Two da$s after the incident, Ramon Kulueta was informed that the /eepne$ driver and his wife had surrendere

police station in 5an uan. The following da$, he went there 0ut the driver was not around. 'e gave a statemepolice. 1

B$ flu2e of fate, it was -race herself who 0rought a0out the apprehension of MendoDa. On the morning of un11, -race saw MendoDa selling ice cream along Altura 5t. 5he noticed MendoDa staring at her. &hen she s0ac2, MendoDa lowered his gaDe and left immediatel$. That same afternoon, she saw him again. Considering e$esight, she was instructed 0$ her cousin to 0u$ ice cream from MendoDa so that she could get near enoughsure if he was indeed one of the holduppers. &hen she approached and as2ed MendoDa, 5ama, 4ilala 4ita,

1' a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt1


13/95

not loo2 her in the e$es and seemed confused. Certain now that he was one of the holduppers, -race announced to her0rother and the other people present that MendoDa was one of the holduppers. MendoDa tried to ma2e a run for it, 0utthe people gave chase and overtoo2 him.!

MendoDa was 0rought to the police station where he was identified 0$ -race in a lineup.1Re/ali was apprehended thatsame night 0$ police operatives. According to 5O1 +almacio *uces, *ucia 5alinas, the wife of eepne$ driver Firgilio5alinas, descri0ed one of the suspects to the B cartographer who came out with a s2etch of his face.'owever,*uces failed to get a statement from *ucia.9

3vidence for the Defense

Appellants interposed denial and ali0i as defenses. Both of them admitted 2nowing each other as the$ were wor2ing asice cream vendors at the Ana Maria ce Cream )actor$ in 1!@" Balic0alic, 5ampaloc, Manila where the$ also lodged inrooms provided 0$ their emplo$er. MendoDa, 8 $ears old, swore that on that fateful da$, he sold ice cream from 8%9!a.m. to a0out @%!! p.m. )rom the factor$, he went as far as F. Mapa 5t., passing under the 0ridge near the 5top and5hop 5upermar2et. B$ "%9! in the afternoon, he was 0ac2 at the factor$. 'e spent the night of Ma$ , 11 in his living=uarters at the factor$ ta2ing care of his child as his wife was pregnant.@

)or his part, #$earold Re/ali testified that he also sold ice cream on the date in =uestion, from #%9! a.m. to @%!! p.m.,along (. TuaDon 5t. near Balic0alic. 'e claimed that he had not gone to 5an uan as he did not even 2now where 5anuan was, 0eing new in the vicinit$. Once 0ac2 in the factor$, he prepared ice cream for sale t he ne>t da$. Then herested in his room."

M$rna Balderama, who also sta$ed in the living =uarters within the same ice cream factor$, corro0orated the testimoniesof the two accused. According to her, she saw MendoDa enter the compound in the afternoon of Ma$ , 11. )rom

outside her room, she could see MendoDa?s room< on the night in =uestion, she saw him ta2ing care of his child. As toRe/ali, she 2new that he did not leave the premises that evening as she had a conversation with him up to 1!%!! p.m.while he was preparing ice cream. :

On March 1!, 1, the trial court#rendered the +ecision su0/ect of this appeal. ts dispositive portion reads asfollows%

&'(R()OR(, premises considered, the Court finds 0oth accused ROM(O M(+OKA $ R(3(5 and AM(R(A* $ *A guilt$ 0e$ond reasona0le dou0t of the crime of Fiolation of residential +ecree o. "9 6Antiirac$ and Anti'ighwa$ Ro00er$ *aw of 1#@7 and here0$ sentences each of them t o suffer the penalt$of reclusion perpetua with all its accessor$ penalties, to indemnif$ the heirs of Ramil$n Kulueta in the amountof ))T3 T'O45A+ (5O5 6"!,!!!.!!7, to pa$ the sum of 9,:#9.9" 0$ wa$ of reim0ursement of thehospitaliDation, 0urial and other related e>penses for Ramil$n Kulueta and the further sum of 9!,!!!.!! 0$wa$ of moral and e>emplar$ damages< to pa$ -lor$ Oropeo the sum of 9!.!! 0$ wa$ of reparation of thestolen cash mone$< to pa$ Ma. -race Kulueta the sum of :,@!!.!! 0$ wa$ of reim0ursement of her

hospitaliDation e>penses, all without su0sidiar$ imprisonment in case of insolvenc$ and to pa$ the costs.

n the service of their sentence, the accused shall 0e credited in full with the period of their preventiveimprisonment.

5O OR+(R(+.

n this appeal, appellants fault the trial court for giving credence to the inconsistent, conflicting and contradictotestimonies of prosecution witnesses -race Kulueta and -lor$ Oropeo and for convicting them of the crime cdespite the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt 0e$ond reasona0le dou0t.8

Although not directl$ raised 0$ the appellants, we find upon a thorough scrutin$ of the facts that there is $et an=uestion which is of concern to the 0ar and the 0ench% are the facts attendant to this case constitutive of the chighwa$ ro00er$ with homicide under res. +ecree o. "9 or of the felon$ of ro00er$ with homicide under Arthe Revised enal Code

+he Court"s uling

This appeal hinges primaril$ on the issue of credi0ilit$ of witnesses. As this Court has ruled in innumera0le castrial court is 0est e=uipped to ma2e the assessment on said issue and therefore, its factual findings are generadistur0ed on appeal unless the courta quo is perceived to have overloo2ed, misunderstood or misinterpreted cfacts or circumstances of weight, which, if properl$ considered, would affect the result of the case and warrantof the decision involved.&e do not find in the instant case an$ such reason to depart from said general prinevertheless, in the interest of su0stantial /ustice, we shall confront the issues raised herein 0$ the appellants

Appellants allege the following inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution e$ewitnesses% 6a7 -race testified tRe/ali who shouted holdup, pulled out a gun and fired, in contradiction to -lor$?s testimon$ that the man in fher, referring to ac2, announced the holdup, and 607 at the direct e>amination, -race pointed out that she wa0ehind her right ear 0ut during crosse>amination, she said that she was hit on the left ear.

The first inconsistenc$ ma$ 0e attri0uted to the difference in the relative positions of -race and -lor$ inside th-race was seated near the rear entrance of the /eepne$ while - lor$ was 0ehind the driver. Because -race wa

0oth ac2 and Re/ali who were seated near -lor$, this could have affected her perception of who announced tup. At an$ rate, such disparit$ in their testimonies does not at all derail the sufficientl$ esta0lished fact that 0otappellants herein participated in the holdup. As regards the in/uries sustained 0$ -race, the certificate issuedattending ph$sician, +r. 5osepatro Aguila, states that she sustained in/uries onbothsides of the head9!,clearl$ no contradictions in her testimon$ with respect to where she was hit.

Be that as it ma$, these inconsistencies or contradictions are minor ones which do not have an$ material 0ethe culpa0ilit$ of the appellants as the$ do not in an$ wa$ refute their positive identification 0$ the two e$ewitnethe perpetrators of the holdup.91On the contrar$, the$ reflect the t ruthfulness of the testimonies of -race and this Court said in People vs. etuta9%

The discrepanc$ signifies that the two witnesses did not deli0eratel$ pervert the truth in their narratidiscordance< in their testimonies on minor matters heightens their credi0ilit$ and shows that their teswere not coached or rehearsed 6eople v. +oria, "" 5CRA @"7. As this 'onora0le Court held in eAgudu, 19# 5CRA "1: to wit%

'owever, the variance, if an$, is on a minor detail which would not destro$ the effectiventheir testimon$. $e cannot epect absolute uniformity in every detail because witnesses redifferently to what they see and hear, depending upon their situation and state of mind. Couniformit$ in details is a 0adge of untruthfulness. The light contradictions, on the other hastrengthens the sincerit$ of the testimon$ of the witnesses.

19' a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt32


14/95

Thus, far from evidence of falsehood, the minor inconsistenc$ 0etween the testimonies could /ustifia0l$ 0eregarded as a demonstration of their good faith.

The strongest part of the defense arguments concerns the identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of thecrime considering the lighting condition inside the /eepne$. Appellants 0elieved that the$ could not have 0eenrecogniDed 0ecause 0oth -race and -lor$ admitted that the place was dar2, and so surmised that it would have 0eendar2er inside the /eepne$ 0ecause the e$ewitnesses failed to point out the source of light therein.99'owever, in tr$ing toprove their allegation, appellants unwittingl$ 0rought out details via -race?s testimon$ which demolish their surmise.Thus%

I. +espite the dar2ness, $ou were a0le to identif$ the gun

A. did not sa$ it was completel$ dar2. saidin the jeepney it was quite lighted. said it was dar4 outsidebut in the jeepney, it was quite lighted.9@6(mphasis supplied.7

t seems, moreover, that appellants onl$ =uoted portions of the testimonies of -race and -lor$ to suit their purpose.'ad the appellants 0een candid enough, the$ would have retained portions of the same testimonies evidencing that itwas theplace where the jeepney was passing through that was dar2 0ut, inside the /eepne$, it was medium light.-race had testified on crosse>amination as follows%

I. $ill you mention again the eact location of the alleged incident

A. 2 am not familiar with the streets, sir.2t was after a bridge.)fter 635, sir.

I. &hat was thecondition of the place at that time

A. t was moderatel$ dar2. Iuite lighted. Medium.

I. 'ow a0out inside the passenger jeepney &as it lighted

A. 5edium, sir. 5ince it was dar2, $ou cannot have a complete light there.

I. t was =uite dar2

A. 3es, sir.9"

)or her part, -lor$ testified on crosse>amination in this wise%

I. Madam witness, will $ou mention again theeact location where $ou said $ou were allegedl$ held up

A. San 'uan, (. Lo7ada and '% ui7 St., sir.

I. &hat was thecondition of that place at that time

A. t was dar2 0ecause it was alread$ nighttime.

I. 3ou mean the eact place where you were held*up is a dar2 place

A. 3es, sir.9:6(mphasis supplied.7

Fisi0ilit$ is an important factor in the identification of a criminal offender. 'owever, its relative weight and signifdepends largel$ on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court.9#Another overriding considis the fact that the most natural reaction of victims of violence is to see the appearance of the perpetrator of thand o0serve the manner in which the crime was 0eing committed.98

n the case 0efore us, -race?s unre0utted testimon$ is that the /eepne$ was =uite lighted . . . medium. (ven that the light was dim as most /eepne$s have colored or lowwattage 0ul0s for the passenger area, the added

illumination from the headlights of passing vehicles traveling the 0us$ Aurora Boulevard would have 0een suffipermit positive identification of the appellants.9Moreover, identification of the appellants as the holduppers wfacilitated 0$ their ph$sical pro>imit$ to the said e$ewitnesses. -race was seated 0eside appellant MendoDa wwas 0eside Re/ali. That -race had poor e$esight does not affect her positive identification of MendoDa 0ecauswearing her e$eglasses when the holdup too2 place.@!As stated a0ove, 0ecause the$ were victims of violenc-race and -lor$ must have had the appellants? features indeli0l$ imprinted in their minds.

n light of the positive identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, their ali0is areworthless.@1Moreover, the defense failed to meet the re=uisites for ali0i to 0e considered as a valid defense. tenough that the appellants were somewhere else when the crime transpired. The$ must li2ewise dul$ esta0lishwere so far awa$ that it was not ph$sicall$ possi0le for them to 0e present at the crime scene or its immediateor a0out the time of its commission.@Balic0alic in 5ampaloc, Manila and Aurora Boulevard in 5an uan, Metrare not ver$ distant from each other considering the numerous pu0lic transportation facilities pl$ing 0etween splaces.

But, while there is proof 0e$ond reasona0le dou0t to la$ culpa0ilit$ on the appellants for the 2illing of Ma. RamKulueta, the ph$sical in/uries sustained 0$ her sister -race and the asportation of -lor$ Oropeo?s thirt$ pesos,agree with the trial court that the crime committed 0$ appellants is covered 0$ .+. o. "9.

n its +ecision, the trial court curtl$ said%

The Court finds all the elements of the offense charged, namel$, intent to gain, unlawful ta2ing of pranother, 6the 9!.!! of -lor$ Oropeo7 violence against or intimidation of an$ person, on a hilippineand death of Ramil$n Kulueta and ph$sical in/uries upon Ma. -race Kulueta, 65ection , par. 9 and 5par. 0, Antiirac$ and Anti'ighwa$ Ro00er$ *aw of 1#@, res. +ecree o. "97 have 0een dul$ pthe instant case.

(ighway obbery or obbery with (omicide8

Conviction under .+. o. "9 re=uires not onl$ the a0ove elements mentioned 0$ the courta quo. 'ighwa$ ro00rigandage is defined 0$ 5ection of said decree as follows%

e. (ighway obbery9#rigandage. The seiDure of an$ person f or ransom, e>tortion or other unlawful or the ta2ing awa$ of the propert$ of another 0$ means of violence against or intimidation of person upon things or other unlawful means, committed 0$ an$ person on an$ hilippine highwa$.

1@' a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt42


15/95

n People vs. Puno@9,this Court, spea2ing through the learned Mr. ustice )lorenD +. Regalado, e>plained the purposeof 0rigandage as follows%

n fine, the purpose of 0rigandage isinter alia, indiscriminate highwa$ ro00er$. f the purpose is onl$ aparticular ro00er$, the crime is onl$ ro00er$, or ro00er$ in 0and if there are at least f our armed participants.6citing 4.5. vs. )eliciano, 9 hil. @ [email protected] . . .

. . . residential +ecree o. "9 punishes as highwa$ ro00er$ or 0rigandage onl$ acts of ro00er$ perpetrated0$ outlaws indiscriminatel$ against an$ person or persons on hilippine highwa$s as defined therein, and notacts of ro00er$ committed against onl$ a predetermined or particular victim, . . .

Consistent with the a0ove, to o0tain a conviction for highwa$ ro00er$, the prosecution should have proven that theaccused, in the instant case, were organiDed for the purpose of committing ro00er$ indiscriminatel$. There, however,was a total a0sence of such proof. There was also no evidence of an$ previous attempts at similar ro00eries 0$ theaccused to show the indiscriminate commission thereof.

ncidentall$, it would 0e relevant to add that the num0er of perpetrators is no longer an essential element of the crime of0rigandage as defined 0$ .+. o. "9. Mr. ustice Regalado e>plained this inPuno%

True, residential +ecree o. "9 did introduce amendments to Articles 9!: and 9!# of the Revised enalCode 0$ increasing the penalties, al0eit limiting its applica0ilit$ to the offenses stated therein when committedon the highwa$s and without pre/udice to the lia0ilit$ for such acts if committed. )urthermore, the decree doesnot re=uire that there 0e at least four armed persons forming a 0and of ro00ers< and the presumption in theCode that said accused are 0rigands if the$ use unlicensed firearms no longer o0tains under the decree. . ..@@

4nder the old doctrine, 0rigandage was committed 0$ a cuadrilla@"

or 0$ more than t hree armed persons per thedefinition of 0rigands in Article 9!: of the Revised enal Code.@:

(ven 0efore the Puno holding, however, there had 0een cases@#where less than four offenders were held guilt$ ofhighwa$ ro00er$ under .+. o. "9, which /ust strengthens the view that the num0er of offenders is not an essentialelement in the crime of highwa$ ro00er$.@8

t is possi0le that since Aurora Boulevard is a high wa$ within the purview of .+. o. "9,@the prosecutors deemed itproper to charge appellants with violation of said decree. n this regard, thePuno ruling is enlightening. This Court held%

. . . 6i7t would 0e a0surd to adopt a literal interpretation that an$ unlawful ta2ing of propert$ committed on ourhighwa$s would 0e covered there0$. t is an elementar$ rule of statutor$ construction that the spirit or intent ofthe law should not 0e su0ordinated to the letter thereof. Trite as it ma$ appear, we have perforce to stress theelementar$ caveat that he who considers merel$ the letter of an instrument goes 0ut s2in deep into its

meaning, and the fundamental rule that criminal /ustice inclines in favor of the milder form of lia0ilit$ in case ofdou0t.

f the mere fact that the offense charged was committed on a highwa$ would 0e the determinant for theapplication of residential +ecree o. "9, it would not 0e farfetched to e>pect mischievous, if not a0surd,effects on the corpus of our su0stantive criminal law. &hile we eschew resort to areductio ad absurdumlineof reasoning, we apprehend that the aforestated theor$ adopted 0$ the trial court falls far short of thedesideratum in the interpretation of laws, that is, to avoid a0surdities and conflicts. )or, if a motor vehicle,either stationar$ or moving on a highwa$, is forci0l$ ta2en at gunpoint 0$ the accused who happened to ta2e

a fanc$ thereto, would the location of the vehicle at the time of the unlawful ta2ing necessaril$ put thwithin the am0it of residential +ecree o. "99, thus rendering nugator$ the categorical provisions oAntiCarnapping Act of 1# And, if the scenario is one where the su0/ect matter of the unlawful asis large cattle which are incidentall$ 0eing herded along and traversing the same highwa$ and are imset upon 0$ the accused, should we appl$ residential +ecree o. "9 and completel$ disregard thprescriptions in the AntiCattle Rustling *aw of 1#@"!

'ence, in charging a crime under .+. o. "9, it is important to consider whether or not the ver$ purpose for law was promulgated has 0een transgressed.Citingthe whereas clauses of .+. o. "9"1in Puno, the Cour

ndeed, it is hard to conceive of how a single act of ro00er$ against a particular person chosen 0$ th

accused as their specific victim could 0e considered as committed on the innocent and defenselessinha0itants who travel from one place to another, and which single act of depredation would 0e capstunting the economic and social progress of the people as to 0e considered among the highest flawlessness condemned 0$ the penal statutes of all countries, and would accordingl$ constitute an to the economic, social, educational and communit$ progress of the people, such that said isolatedwould constitute the highwa$ ro00er$ or 0rigandage contemplated and punished in said decree. Thi0e an e>aggeration 0ordering on the ridiculous."

ett$ ro00er$ in pu0lic transport vehicles 6with or without personal violence and death7 committed against the and lower economic classes of societ$ is as reprehensi0le as 6if not more so than7 largescale ro00er$ commitagainst the economicall$ wellheeled. onetheless, the law must 0e interpreted not onl$ to 0ring forth its aim a0ut also in light of the 0asic principle that all dou0ts are to 0e resolved li0erall$ in favor of the accused. As sucappellants ma$ not 0e held lia0le under .+. o. "9 0ut onl$ under the provisions of the Revised enal Code

n the interpretation of an information, what controls is not the designation 0ut the description of the offensecharged."9Considering the allegations of the afore=uoted nformation, appellants herein should 0e lia0le for thcomple> crime of ro00er$ with homicide under Art. @ of the Revised enal Code, ro00er$ having 0een dul$esta0lished 0e$ond reasona0le dou0t 0$ the asportation of thirt$ pesos from -lor$ Oropeo. t is immaterial thaKulueta?s death was accidental 0ecause it was produced 0$ reason or on the occasion of the ro00er$."@The ph$in/uries inflicted upon -race Kulueta during the commission of the crime are a0sor0ed in the crime of ro00er$ whomicide.""

Conspirac$ was dul$ proven 0$ the coordinated actions of the appellants and their companion":of depriving -lher mone$ and in/uring 0oth Ramil$n and -race which resulted in Ramil$n?s accidental death. 5ince 0oth appetoo2 part in the ro00er$, the$ shall 0e lia0le for the comple> crime of ro00er$ with homicide in the a0sence of pthe$ endeavored to prevent the accidental 2illing of Ramil$n."#n view of the prohi0ition against the imposition death penalt$ when the crime was committed, the penalt$ ofreclusion perpetua was then the single and indivispenalt$ for ro00er$ with homicide. t shall 0e imposed on each of the appellants regardless of the mitigating anaggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime."8

&'(R()OR(, the +ecision of the Regional Trial Court of asig, Metro Manila 6Branch 1":7 in Crim. Case ohere0$ MO+)(+. Appellants Romeo MendoDa $ Re$es and aime Re/ali $ *ina are here0$ found -4*T3 0ereasona0le dou0t of the special comple> crime of ro00er$ with homicide and accordingl$, each of them is heresentenced to suffer the penalt$ ofreclusion perpetua. The other portions of the trial court?s decision, including tmonetar$ awards imposed against them, are A))RM(+. Costs against appellants.

5O OR+(R(+.

1"' a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_104461_1996.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/fe

Full Text Compiliation Evidence

Documents

Transcript of Full Text Compiliation Evidence