SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 131840. April 27, 2000]
THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NILO BAUTISTA and HENRY
BAUTISTA, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision,[1] dated June 23, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 79, Morong, Rizal, finding accused-appellants Henry and Nilo Bautista
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly the amounts of
P24,839.00 as actual damages and P30,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of
the victim, Igmidio Grajo. LexjÓ uris
The Information alleged ¾
That on or about
the 7th day of June, 1995 in the Municipality of Tanay, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, armed with a bladed
weapon, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
one Igmidio Grajo y Sinosin inflicting mortal wounds on the different parts of
the body of the said victim which caused his instantaneous death.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that,
at around 9:30 in the evening of June 7, 1995, Richard Grajo, the son of the
victim, Igmidio Grajo, was with a group of friends in front of the store of
Edgardo Cruz on Rodriguez Street, Tanay, Rizal. When he saw his father coming,
Richard hid inside the store thinking he would be sent home. From where he was
hiding, Richard saw accused-appellants Henry and Nilo Bautista walking behind
his father. Apparently sensing the presence of accused-appellants, Igmidio ran
inside the house of Cruz, which adjoins the store. But as accused-appellants
were pursuing him, Igmidio ran outside the house.[2]
Accused-appellants caught up with Igmidio in
front of the house of Cruz. Henry tried to stab him with a knife
("balisong") but Igmidio was able to evade the thrust. At this point,
Richard came out of the store to help his father. However, Noli held him and
pushed him to the ground.[3] Three prosecution witnesses, Joseph Manansala,
Armando Alalid, and Jerry Fontanos, testified that Noli punched Richard in the
stomach,[4] while Henry stabbed Igmidio several times with the
"balisong", causing the latter to fall to the ground on his back.
Accused-appellants then ran away. Igmidio was taken to a hospital, where he
died.[5]
On the other hand, the defense presented
evidence showing the following. Henry Bautista met Igmidio Grajo on his way
home on Rodriguez Street, Tanay, Rizal in the evening of June 7, 1995. Igmidio
appeared to be drunk and began cursing Henry without any provocation. To avoid
trouble, Henry turned back, but Igmidio hit him from behind with a lead pipe.
As Henry staggered, Igmidio continued to hit him on the head and arms, causing
him to retreat further back. In self-defense, Henry gave Igmidio a kick which
threw the latter against a tricycle parked nearby. But Igmidio got a knife from
the tricycle. Seeing this, Henry grappled with Igmidio for possession of the
weapon. Henry succeeded in wresting the knife from Igmidio and with it stabbed
the latter in the chest.[6]
At this point, Noli arrived at the scene and
pacified Henry, who allowed himself to be brought to his house. However, as he
was apprehensive that relatives of Igmidio might seek revenge, Henry went to
the house of Noli and then to that of a friend, but as both were not home,
Henry hid in the cemetery, and from there took a ride to his hometown, Sta.
Cruz, Laguna. On June 9, 1995, Henry was told by relatives that Noli had been
taken into custody for the killing of Igmidio. He was prevailed upon to
surrender to the Mayor of Tanay, Rizal, who that same day sent his driver to
Sta. Cruz, Laguna to fetch him.[7] Upon reaching Tanay, Rizal, Henry surrendered at the
municipal police station.[8]
Dr. Owen J. Lebaquin, who performed the
autopsy on the body of Igmidio, issued a medical certificate, dated August 4,
1995, containing the following findings:
FINDINGS:
POST MORTEM
FINDINGS:
Fairly developed,
fairly nourished previously embalmed male cadaver with an embalming incision at
the right anterior neck.
1)......Incised wound, right anterior neck,
measuring 6.5 x 2 cm, 9 cm from the anterior midline.
2)......Stab wound, point of entry, left anterior
chest, measuring 5.2 x 0.8 cm, 4.8 cm from the anterior midline, passing thru
the left 4th intercostal space, 8.5 cm deep, directed posteriorwards,
medialwards, slightly downwards, lacerating the lower lobe of the left lungs. JuriÓ smis
3)......Stab wound, point of entry, sternal region
of the chest, measuring 3.4 x 0.8 cm, along the anterior midline, passing thru
the level of the 4th intercostal space, 5.5 cm. deep directed posteriorwards,
lateralwards, slightly upwards lacerating the pericardial sac.
4)......Linear abrasion, right anterior chest
extending to the left anterior chest, measuring 20.8 x 0.4 cm, 5 cm left of the
anterior midline.
5)......Stab wound, point of entry, left
infrascapular region, measuring 1.5 x 0.3 cm. 10 cm from the posterior midline
passing thru the 8th left intercostal space, 5.5 cm deep, directed
anteriorwards, upwards, medialwards, lacerating the lowerlobe of the left lung.
6)......Stab wound, point of entry, inter spiral
region of the back of the level of the 9th thoracic ribs, measuring 3.4 x 0.4
cm, along the posterior midline, 6 cm deep, directed anteriorwards, slightly
upwards and lateralwards, lacerating the lower lobe of the left lung.
7)......Abrasion, distal 3rd of the right thigh,
measuring 2 x 0.6 cm, 2.5 cm lateral to its anterior midline.
8)......Abrasion, right knee, measuring 2 x 1.3 cm
along its anterior midline.
There are about
1,500 cc of blood and blood clots admixed with formalin at the thoracic cavity.
CONCLUSION:
Cause of death is
Hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab wounds of the chest and back.[9]
In the decision, dated June 23, 1997, the
trial court found:
A careful reading
of the evidence on record induces this court to believe with approval the
testimonies of Richard Grajo, son of the victim, corroborated by the testimony
of witness Joseph Manansala.
. . . .
In contrast, the
court finds the defense version incongruous with reality.
. . . . Jjjä uris
The foregoing
narration by accused Henry Bautista is an outright fabrication to shield him
from liability by attempting to show that it was the victim who was about to
get the knife from the parked tricycle when he suddenly grabbed the knife and
used it in stabbing the victim. It was obviously designed by the accused Henry
Bautista to provide himself the justifying circumstance of self defense.
. . . .
The qualifying
circumstance of treachery is present in the case at bar. The victim was stabbed
when pursued by accused Henry Bautista. The stabbing took place when the victim
has no means to defend himself. As testified to by Dr. Owen J. Lebaquin, the
medicolegal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory who autopsied the cadaver of
the victim, he said that of the several wounds inflicted upon the said victim,
wounds number 5 and 6 which are located at the back are both fatal wounds.
These two wounds affected the lower lobe of the left lung. Wound number 3
appears according to the Dr. to be the most fatal because it lacerated the
pericardial sac of the heart.
As to the amount
of damages suffered by the widow of the victim, Purita Grajo, her deceased
husband was earning P300.00 a day for repacking bleaching liquid (chlorox). The
funeral expenses she incurred were P7,000.00 for seven (7) days wake, P9,000.00
for funeral services (Exhibit "F"); P8,000.00 for memorial lot,
(Exhibit "F-1"); P204.00 construction materials, (Exhibit
"H"); and P635.00 for hospital bill with a total of P24,839.00.
The accused were
charged of murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of which is reclusion
perpetua to death, the qualifying circumstance of treachery having been proven.
In this case, no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance is present. The proper
penalty in accordance with Article 63, second paragraph of the Revised Penal
Code is the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, accused
HENRY BAUTISTA and NILO BAUTISTA having been found to be GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Both accused are further ordered to pay the
heirs of the victim the amount of P24,839.00 by way of actual damages and the
further sum of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity both amounts to be paid
jointly by them.
Hence this appeal. Accused-appellants assign
the following errors as having been allegedly committed by the trial court: lex
I.......THE COURT OF ORIGIN ERRED SERIOUSLY IN NOT
CONSIDERING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE POSED BY
ACCUSED-APPELLANT HENRY BAUTISTA WHICH IN EFFECT, NOT EXCULPATING HIM OF THE
CRIME CHARGED IN THE CASE AT BAR.
II.......THE TRIAL COURT HAS COMMITTED A SERIOUS
ERROR IN NOT EXCULPATING ACCUSED-APPELLANT NILO BAUTISTA OF THE CRIME CHARGED
DUE TO LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
A CRIME AGAINST THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THE CASE IN BENCH.
The instant petition is without merit.
First. Richard Grajo, the son of Igmidio Grajo, testified:
Q......On June 7, 1995 at around 9:30 P.M., tell
this court where were you at that time?
A......At Rodriguez Street, Tanay, Rizal, sir.
Q......What were you doing at Rodriguez St.,
Tanay, Rizal?
A......We were telling stories with my friends,
sir.
Q......At whose house were you talking with your
friends at that time?
A......At the store of Egay, sir.
Q......Do you know the full name of this Egay?
A......Edgardo Cruz, sir.
Q......You mentioned that you and your friends
were talking, inside or outside the store?
A......Outside, sir.
Q......Tell the name of your friends who were
with you at the store?
A......Joseph Manansala, Jessie Bolaño, Jess
Buenaventura, Eric Jasmin, June Austria, Tots Dizon and Joel Nacor, sir.
Q......Do I understand from you that this is a
big store?
A......Not so big, sir.
Q......While you and your companions were
talking, do you recall if there was an unusual incident that happened at that
time?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......What is that unusual incident?
A......I witnessed how they killed my father,
sir.
Q......Tell us the incident of how your father
was killed?
A......My father went to me at the store, sir.
Q......After that, what happened next?
A......And following him were brothers Henry and
Nilo, sir.
Q......Tell us the surname of these two brothers?
A......Bautista, sir.
Q......When you noticed that Danilo Bautista and
Henry Bautista were following your father, what took place next?
A......Henry Bautista stabbed my father and I was
pushed by Nilo Bautista so that I can’t extend help to my father, sir. Jksm
Q......How many times did Henry Bautista stab
your father?
A......At the first stab, my father was able to evade
and ran but he followed my father and he was able to approach him outside of
the house, sir.
Q......What happened after that?
A......They ran in and out of the house, sir.
Q......What happened after they ran in and out of
the house with Henry Bautista pursuing your father?
A......When Henry overtook my father, he stabbed
him for several times and when he saw blood, he ran together with Nilo
Bautista, sir.
Q......While Henry Bautista was stabbing your
father, where were you at that time?
A......I was there at the place of the incident,
sir.
Q......How far were you from your father while he
was being stabbed by Henry Bautista?
A......About five meters, sir.
Q......While you were five meters from your
father and who at that time was being stabbed by Henry Bautista, where is Nilo
Bautista at that time?
A......He was holding me and refraining me to
come near to my father, sir.
Q......In what manner was he preventing you from
coming to the rescue of your father?
A......He hit me with his both hands and I rolled
on the ground, sir.
Q......You mentioned that he hit you, what part
of your body was hit?
A......On my hands, sir.
Q......Was that the only thing which he did to
restrain you?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......When you saw that your father was being
stabbed by this Henry Bautista, what action if any did you take?
A......I was trying to come near him and I was
crying and shouting to Henry to stop stabbing my father, sir.
Q......Considering that this incident happened at
around 9:30 in the evening, how were you able to see this incident?
A......There was light at the place and also
there is moonlight, sir.
Q......You mentioned that there is light at that
time. Where is this light coming from?
A......From the store, sir.
Q......How far is the store from the place where
your father was being stabbed by this Henry Bautista?
A......Three meters, sir.
Q......You mentioned that there are several
persons who were present at that time. What did your friends do if any while
your father was being chased? Chief
A......My friends ran because they thought they
were the ones being chased, sir.
Q......After Nilo Bautista and Henry Bautista
left, what did you do if any?
A......We brought my father to the hospital, sir.
Q......To what hospital?
A......Tanay General Hospital, sir.
Q......What happened at the hospital?
A......He was dead upon arrival, sir.
The testimony of Richard was substantially
corroborated by Joseph Manansala,[10] Armando Alalid,[11] and Jerry Fontanos.[12] Joseph Manansala was one of Richard’s companions on
the night in question. Armando Alalid is a member of the Junior Police Group of
Tanay, Rizal, which is assigned to direct traffic in that municipality. He was
passing by the area with Jerry Fontanos when accused-appellants allegedly
attacked Igmidio.
It is settled that because of its
opportunity to observe the facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice of
a witness while testifying, the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of
witnesses is entitled to great respect.[13] In the instant case, accused-appellants have not
shown that the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of the
witnesses for the prosecution.
Moreover, although proof as to the motive of
the accused is not essential when there is direct testimony regarding the
commission of the offense, motive may nevertheless aid in establishing his
guilt.[14] In this case, the evidence shows that Henry and
Igmidio had a dispute regarding their adjacent properties two weeks prior to
the commission of the offense. Richard thus testified:
FISCAL:
Q......Do you know of any reason why Henry and
Nilo Bautista will kill your father?
A......What I know was that one day, there was an
incident that my father saw "balat ng aso" [dumped into] in our lot
which came from the adjacent lot owned by Henry and Nilo Bautista and my father
confronted them and asked why [you] are throwing dirt on said vacant lot of
which my father is the caretaker and then Henry Bautista showed a knife and
said "anong gusto mong mangyari" and my father answered, "hindi
naman ganyan bakit tayo aabot sa ganyan".
Q......When did that incident happen?
A......Two weeks before the incident, sir.
Q......Will you please look inside the courtroom
and tell us if this Nilo and Henry Bautista are present?
A......Yes, sir.[15]
In contrast, the
testimony of the witnesses for the defense is marked by contradictions, as the
following portion of Henry’s testimony shows:
FISCAL:
Q......Now, during your testimony last June 26,
1996 you were asked by your counsel the following question, at least try to
recall which one was first hit by the said person which part of your body? Esmsc
A......My right arm.
Q......You said "kanang kamay"?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......A while ago you testified that the first
part of your body that was hit is your head, which of the two statement are
correct?
A......The correct one is that part of my head.
(Witness indicating by his left hand the left back portion of his head was the
first one hit).
Q......And so why did you tell your lawyer during
the previous hearing that it is your right arm that was hit first?
A......Because when I testified first on June 26,
1996 I was "nataranta."
Q......Now, also on the same date, the question
was propounded, then which part was the next one hit by Igmidio Grajo and you
answered my left arm, do you remember having made that statement?
A......Yes, sir I was asked that question.
Q......A while ago you stated that the second
part of your body that was hit was your right arm near the wrist portion?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Which of the two is the correct one?
A......The right wrist portion of my arm.
Q......And why did you say that in your answer to
Atty. dela Cuesta is that it is your first arm that was hit by Igmidio Grajo?
A......I was also dizzy at the time I answered
Atty. dela Cuesta.
Q......During the same testimony you were again
asked a question and then after that what other part of your body was hit and
you answered my back, do you recall having made that statement?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Now, during your testimony a while ago you
mentioned that the third part of your body that was hit was your right arm, is
that also correct?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Which of that statement is correct?
A......The right arm.
Q......In other words, all the question asked of
you by your lawyer and answered by you were not correctly answered by you and
it is only now that you are answering correctly?
A......Yes, sir.[16] Esmmis
The defense presented a medical certificate,
dated June 9, 1995 and signed by Dr. Daniel M. Alagon, to the effect that he
treated Henry for contusions on the chest, left shoulder, and right forearm.[17] But Dr. Alagon could not remember examining Henry or
issuing the medical certificate.[18] Nor could he find any record in the files of his
clinic that he treated Henry.[19] Moreover, Dr. Alagon stated that he could not deduce
with any certainty from the medical certificate that the alleged injuries of
Henry had been sustained on the night of June 7, 1995 when Igmidio was killed.[20] Hence, the medical certificate is insufficient to
establish the allegation of the defense that Henry was attacked by Igmidio.
As pointed out by the Solicitor General,[21] the prosecution has established that Igmidio
sustained four stab wounds and one incised wound,[22] which bely Henry’s claim of self-defense.[23] In any event, even if Henry’s testimony were true,
he cannot be exonerated for the killing of Igmidio on the ground of
self-defense. He testified on cross-examination:
Q......Now, you mentioned that you retaliated by
kicking Igmidio Grajo, is that right?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And as a result of your kicking Igmidio
Grajo was thrown back to the tricycle?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And in fact, during your testimony during
the last hearing you testified that "lumipad si Igmidio Grajo sa
tricycle."
A......Yes, sir.
Q......In other words, the kick which you
delivered to Igmidio Grajo was so strong that its effect was he flew to the
tricycle?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And as a result his back hit the tricycle,
is that right?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And that you also heard that when his back
hit the tricycle there is a noise that was created as a result of impact?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And so you’ll admit that Igmidio Grajo was
badly hurt by that impact?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And after that you went to Igmidio Grajo
to further inflict injuries on him, is that right?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And you intend to do that because of those
many blows which he delivered on your head, arms and chest?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And then you rained blows on the different
parts of the body of Igmidio Grajo?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And as a result of that Igmidio Grajo was
rendered helpless and defenseless?
A......Yes, sir.[24] Es-mso
To prove self-defense, the accused must
establish three requisites, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such
aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.[25] If, as Henry said, Igmidio was badly hurt after
receiving a kick from him, then the unlawful aggression which could have
justified accused-appellant in inflicting injuries on Igmidio had ceased at
that point. Henry admitted, however, that his intention was to retaliate. This
clearly negates his claim of self-defense.[26] There was no longer any lawful reason for him to
inflict further injuries on Igmidio. The allegation of self-defense is thus
untenable.
Second. There
was conspiracy between Henry and Noli as the trial court found. Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it. [27] It may be deduced from the manner in which the
offense is committed, as when the accused act in concert to achieve the same
objective.[28] In the instant case, accused-appellants pursued
their victim until they caught him. When Richard came out of the store to help
his father, Noli turned to him and punched him in the stomach, knocking him
down. These circumstances prove the existence of conspiracy between
accused-appellants.
Third. However, we hold that the offense committed is not murder, but
homicide.
The trial court found the killing of Igmidio
to have been committed by means of treachery. 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 himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.[29] An example is when the accused attacks the victim
from behind.[30] However, treachery cannot be appreciated when the
victim was given time, no matter how fleeting, to retreat after seeing his
attackers.[31]
31 In this case, although accused-appellants
came from behind, Igmidio sensed their presence in time and was able to run
away. There was thus no treachery.
Neither was there evident premeditation as
alleged in the information. For evident premeditation to be considered, the
following must be established: (a) the time when the accused determined to
commit the offense; (b) the commission of an act manifestly indicating that the
accused clung to his determination; and (c) the lapse of sufficient time
between the moment the accused determined to commit the offense and its actual
commission to enable him to reflect on the consequences of his intended act.[32] The prosecution has not established any of the above
elements in the instant case.
Since it has not been shown that either
treachery or evident premeditation attended the killing of Igmidio,
accused-appellants should have been found guilty of homicide. Ms-esm
It is noted that the crime was attended by
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. This circumstance
is present when the accused purposely used force out of proportion to the means
available to their victim to defend himself.[33] In this case, accused-appellants, who were armed and
who were in the prime of youth, attacked Igmidio, then 53 years old, who was
alone and defenseless. Indeed, the existence of abuse of superior strength
would have qualified the offense to murder, except that it was not alleged in
the information. Consequently, it cannot be treated as a qualifying
circumstance but only as a generic aggravating circumstance.
On the other hand, accused-appellant Henry
Bautista should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. The evidence for the defense shows that on June 9, 1995, after some
relatives talked to him and told him that Noli had been arrested for the
killing of Igmidio, accused-appellant surrendered at the municipal police
station of Tanay, Rizal. In People v. Bautista,[34] the court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender in favor of the accused who turned himself over to the
authorities four days after the commission of the offense. Accused-appellant
Henry Bautista is thus entitled to this mitigating circumstance.
Accused-appellant Noli Bautista, however,
cannot similarly be credited with having voluntarily surrendered. The record
shows that he was taken for questioning and later placed under arrest by the
police. Since the existence of a conspiracy does not prevent the appreciation
of a mitigating circumstance exclusively in favor of the co-conspirator to whom
such circumstance may relate,[35] Noli cannot be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Since both aggravating
and mitigating circumstances are appreciated in favor of accused-appellant
Henry Bautista, the penalty as to him should be fixed in its medium period.[36] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should
be sentenced to an indeterminate term, the minimum of which is within the range
of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision mayor, and the
maximum of which is that properly imposable under the Revised Penal Code, i.e.,
reclusion temporal in its medium period.[37]
On the other hand, since an aggravating
circumstance was appreciated against accused-appellant Noli Bautista, without
any mitigating circumstance, the penalty with respect to him should be fixed in
its maximum period.[38] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Noli should
be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate term, the minimum of which is within
the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision mayor,
and the maximum of which is that properly imposable under the Revised Penal
Code, i.e., reclusion temporal in its maximum period.[39]
Fourth. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[40] We now discuss the nature and amount of damages that
should be awarded to the heirs of Igmidio:
Indemnity for Death and Actual Damages. Art. 2206 of the Civil Code provides for the
payment of indemnity for death caused by a crime. Initially fixed in Art. 2206
at P3,000.00, the amount of indemnity for death has, through the years, been
gradually increased in view of the declining value of the peso. It is presently
fixed at P50,000.00.[41] Hence, the trial court correctly awarded indemnity
for death to the heirs of Igmidio in this amount.
Art. 2199 of the Civil Code provides that
"except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved." The prosecution submitted receipts[42] and presented the testimony[43] of Purita Grajo, the widow of Igmidio Grajo, showing
that his family incurred expenses in the total amount of P24,839.00 for his
wake and burial. Hence, the trial court likewise correctly awarded actual
damages to the heirs of Igmidio in this amount. E-xsm
The civil liability of accused-appellants
for indemnity for death and actual and moral damages, however, is solidary and
not joint as ruled by the trial court.[44]
Moral Damages. Under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, the spouse,
legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased are
entitled to moral damages "for mental anguish by reason of the death of
the deceased." Purita testified that she suffered pain from the death of
her husband. Thus, in accordance with recent decisions[45] of this Court, accused-appellants should be awarded
the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Exemplary Damages. Under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code, "exemplary
damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." As explained above,
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength should be
appreciated against Nilo. Thus, in accordance with decisions[46] of this Court, accused-appellant Nilo Bautista
should be ordered to pay the heirs of Igmidio Grajo the additional sum of
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellants are found guilty of
homicide. Accused-appellant Henry Bautista is sentenced to an indeterminate
term of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months
of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Accused-appellant Nilo Bautista is
sentenced to an indeterminate term of 10 years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Accused-appellants are ordered to pay solidarily the heirs of the victim, in
addition to indemnity for death and actual damages awarded by the trial court,
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Furthermore, accused-appellant Nilo
Bautista is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim exemplary damages in the amount
of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Ky-le
[1] Per Judge Alejandro A. Marquez.
[2] TSN, pp. 3-4, Oct. 24, 1995.
[3] Id., p. 5.
[4] TSN, p. 8, Nov. 14, 1995; p. 9, Jan. 16, 1996; p. 4, March 13, 1996.
[5] TSN, p. 6, Oct. 24, 1995.
[6] TSN, pp. 3-5, June 26, 1996; pp. 2-3, July 17, 1996.
[7] TSN, pp. 4-10, July 17, 1996.
[8] Exh. 3, Records, p. 188.
[9] Exh. E, Records, p. 46.
[10] TSN, pp. 3-10, Nov. 14, 1995.
[11] TSN, pp. 6-10, Jan. 16, 1996.
[12] TSN, pp. 2-6, March 13, 1996.
[13] See Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121087, Aug. 26, 1999.
[14] U.S. v. Carlos, 15 Phil. 47 (1910)
[15] TSN, p. 7, Oct. 24, 1995.
[16] TSN, pp. 18-20, July 17, 1996.
[17] Exh. 1, Records, pp. 184-185.
[18] TSN, pp. 3-5, Dec. 17, 1996.
[19] Id., pp. 9-10.
[20] Id., p. 11.
[21] Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, p. 86.
[22] TSN, p. 4, Dec. 12, 1995; Exh. 5, Records, p. 46.
[23] See People v. Arroyo, 201 SCRA 616 (1991)
[24] TSN, pp. 20-21, July 17, 1996.
[25] Revised Penal Code, Art. 11 (1)
[26] See I Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code 153-54 (1993); People v. So, 247 SCRA 708 (1995)
[27] Revised Penal Code, Art. 8.
[28] People v. Carmina, 193 SCRA 429 (1991)
[29] Revised Penal Code, Art. 14 (16)
[30] People v. Carpio, 282 SCRA 23 (1997)
[31] People v. Ledesma, 250 SCRA 166 (1995)
[32] People v. Lagarto, 196 SCRA 611 (1991)
[33] People v. Asto, 277 SCRA 697 (1997)
[34] 254 SCRA 621 (1996)
[35] People v. Dela Cruz, 147 SCRA 359 (1987)
[36] Revised Penal Code, Art. 64(1) and (4)
[37] Act. No. 4103, §1.
[38] Revised Penal Code, Art. 64(3)
[39] Act No. 4103, §1.
[40] Revised Penal Code, Art. 100.
[41] People v. Atrejenio, G.R. No. 120160, July 13, 1999.
[42] Exhs. F, F-1, G, and H, Records, pp. 74-75.
[43] TSN, pp. 3-4, Jan. 16, 1996.
[44] Revised Penal Code, Art. 110; People v. Tirol, 102 SCRA 558 (1981)
[45] E.g., People v. Suplito, G.R. No. 104944, Sept. 16, 1999.
[46] E.g., People v. Gapasin, 231 SCRA 728 (1994)