PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

DEMETRIO RICAPLAZA Y ABALDE,

(DECEASED), RICO RICAPLAZA Y CANON AND EDDIE RICAPLAZA Y CANON, accused-
appellants.|
[G.R. No. 205151. September 16, 2015.]|||

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16
September 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205151 People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Demetrio
Ricaplaza y Abalde, (deceased), Rico Ricaplaza y Canon and Eddie Ricaplaza y Canon,
accused-appellants.
For resolution is the appeal filed by appellants Demetrio, Rico and Eddie, all surnamed
Ricaplaza assailing the June 26, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 03894 which affirmed in full the February 6, 2009 Decision 2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 4 in Criminal Case No. 13135 finding appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
On September 9, 2003, an Information 3 was filed charging appellants with the crime
of murder. The accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows:
That on or about September 4, 2003 at around 7:00 o'clock in the
evening at Sitio D'Hope, Brgy. Libjo, Batangas City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed
with a bolo (gulukan) and small knife (kutsilyo) both, deadly weapons,
conspiring and confederating together, with intent to kill and with the qualifying
circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab suddenly and
without warning one Romeo Manalo y Bautista @ "Jape" with said deadly
weapons while the latter was completely defenseless, thereby hitting him on
the different parts of his body, which directly caused the victim's death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
When arraigned, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
The facts as summarized by the RTC are as follows:
It is borne out by both the evidence of the Prosecution and the defense
that deceased Romeo was killed inside the fenced premises of the residence
of accused Eddie and his wife Alma Ricaplaza where both accused Rico and
Demetrio were at the time. Accused Rico Ricaplaza appears to have sustained
stab wounds on his right forearm and hand at the time of the incident subject
of this case as shown by defense Exhibit "1." Dr. Antonio Vertido, who testified
on the autopsy of the cadaver of Romeo, found no abrasions, contusions or
other injuries [on] the body and hands of Romeo at the time of the examination.
These circumstances support and lend credence to the proposition and
 testimony of accused Rico and [his] sister-in-law[,] Alma, that on that fateful
day of September 4, 2003 the deceased, Romeo[,] arrived in the house of the
latter and stabbed Rico. Because of the shouts of Alma for Romeo to stop,
Demetrio, father of Rico, was alerted and went out of the house and seeing
that his son[,] Rico[,] was bloodied, stabbed Romeo three (3) times (stab
wound #1, 3 & 4). However, the ensuing facts and the participation of the three
(3) accused in the stabbing incident which caused the death of Romeo, which
qualified the crime to murder, [have] been clearly and convincingly testified to
by Gilbert Tupas who was an eyewitness to the incident. The testimony of
prosecution witness[,] Gilbert Tupas[,] also revealed the identity of the person
of accused Rico who inflicted the other stab wound (#2) on the stomach of
Romeo. Gilbert's testimony on this aspect, supports the findings of Dr. Antonio
Vertido that by reason of the size and depth of stab wound #2, two (2) bladed
weapons were used by two (2) assailants in stabbing Romeo. This finding of
Dr. Vertido, is further reinforced by the testimony of Gilbert Tupas that he saw
Rico also stabbing Romeo. The testimony of Gilbert Tupas as well as the
medical findings on the injuries/stab wounds inflicted on Romeo further
debunks and completely demolished the declaration of self-defense by Rico,
for if it was true that Romeo had initially stabbed him, Rico must have been
able to wrestle the knife from Romeo thereby ending the unlawful aggression
to his (Rico) person, by Romeo, as he was seen together with his father
Demetrio stabbing Romeo while his brother Eddie was holding the right arm of
Romeo. Further, the testimony of Alma and Rico that Romeo was drunk at the
time is not supported or corroborated by the autopsy report on Romeo's
cadaver. CAIHTE
The defense of denial and alibi of Eddie is inherently a weak defense
as it is not enough for Eddie to prove that he was inside his room when the
killing of Romeo was committed. Eddie must likewise prove that it was
physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. 5
Finding the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength to have attended the
killing, the trial court found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and disposed
of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Rico, Demetrio and Eddie, all
surnamed Ricaplaza guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct
participation, of the crime of MURDER under Article 248 as amended by R.A.
No. 7659, with one (1) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the
accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The period of the preventive imprisonment of the accused shall be
credited in the service of their sentence.
Accused Rico, Demetrio and Eddie, all surnamed Ricaplaza are all
ordered to jointly pay the heirs of Romeo Manalo y Bautista the sums of
P17,912.00 [as] actual damages; P75,000.00 [as] civil indemnity for the death
of Romeo Manalo; P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
Let a Commitment Order issue for the transfer of the detention of the
accused from the Batangas City Jail to the National Bilibid Prisons at
Muntinlupa, [Metro] Manila.
 SO ORDERED. 6
In their Brief filed before the CA, appellants claimed that no credence should be
accorded to the testimony of prosecution witness Gilbert Tupaz (Tupaz). 7 They argued that
he gave conflicting and inconsistent testimonies on how Rico sustained injuries on his arm.
At first, he disclaimed knowledge as to how Rico's arm was injured; he also stated that he did
not witness the onset of the fight. Eventually, however, Tupaz testified that Rico's arm was
injured while he and the victim were grappling for possession of the knife. Appellants also
asserted that Tupaz's testimony that Demetrio voluntarily surrendered possession of the knife
to the police officer was contrary to the police officer's assertion that he confiscated the knife
from Demetrio when the latter was bodily frisked. Finally, they contended that Tupaz's
narration that he saw Eddie holding the victim's hands while Demetrio and Rico took turns in
stabbing the victim, was belied by the physical evidence. They also found improbable Tupaz's
version that when he told the protagonists to stop, they just left without protest. According to
appellants, these inconsistencies and improbabilities simply show that Tupaz was not at the
crime scene and did not in fact witness how the crime was committed.
Appellants also assailed the trial court in not giving credence to the testimony of Eddie
that he did not join in the fight, that he just stayed inside the house, and that he was totally
unaware of what was happening outside. Moreover, they asserted that Demetrio merely acted
in self-defense. They claimed that the victim continued to advance towards Demetrio despite
the latter's attempts to parry the blows. Demetrio was constrained to attack the victim only
when the former had no more space to retreat and when he saw his son, Rico, already
bloodied. Appellants complained that the trial court did not discuss how they supposedly
abused their superior strength.
Finally, appellants averred that their arrest was illegal. There was no warrant; neither
did the police officer who arrested them have any personal knowledge that a crime was
committed or is being committed in his presence.
In its assailed Decision, the CA found the inconsistencies in Tupaz's testimony to be
negligible and did not affect its veracity and truthfulness. What is important is that he positively
identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. It did not lend credence to Eddie's alibi
as it was not shown that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. On
the contrary, it was shown that he was in the vicinity. The CA also found implausible Rico's
and Demetrio's assertion of self-defense. It noted that appellants' "claim of self-defense,
coupled with the fact that they did not sustain any injuries from their supposed attacker,
Romeo, [was self-serving]. . . . [T]here was no clear, credible, and convincing evidence that
Romeo was the one who instigated the fight and that [appellants] were merely fending off an
attack." 8 Finally, the CA concurred in the finding of the RTC that the qualifying circumstance
of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. It held that the victim,
"while being restrained by Eddie, was simultaneously stabbed by Rico and Demetrio. Plainly,
not only did the perpetrators outnumber their victim, more importantly, they took advantage of
their combined strength to perpetrate the crime. Under these circumstances, it is undeniable
that there was gross inequality of forces between the victim and the [appellants]." 9
Finally, it held that appellants could no longer assail the legality of their arrest
considering that they were properly arraigned, had actively participated in the trial and that
the trial court had already rendered judgment.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas
City, Branch 4 dated February 6, 2009 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED. 10
Hence, this appeal.
In a letter 11 dated July 13, 2012, the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison
(NBP) informed the CA that appellant Demetrio died at the NBP Hospital on July 26, 2010.
Attached to the letter is a certified true copy of Demetrio's death certificate. 12 DETACa
In a Resolution 13 dated March 4, 2013, we required the parties to submit their
respective supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People,
deemed it unnecessary to file a supplemental brief considering that it already exhaustively
discussed the issues in the brief it filed before the CA. 14 Meanwhile, the defense filed a
Manifestation with Motion 15 praying that the instant appeal be deemed closed and
terminated insofar as Demetrio is concerned in view of his demise pending appeal.
Appellants also filed a Supplemental Brief. 16 They insist that the inconsistencies in
the testimony of Tupaz are material and should not have been ignored by the CA. They also
assail the finding of the appellate court that there was abuse of superior strength.
The appeal lacks merit.
Indeed, as correctly held by the CA, the inconsistencies in the testimony of Tupaz
referred to minor details. It did not in any manner detract from the fact that Tupaz positively
identified the appellants as the authors of the crime. He categorically testified that he saw
Eddie holding the victim thereby restraining his movements while Demetrio and Rico
simultaneously delivered the fatal blows. As to whether Demetrio voluntarily surrendered his
weapon or whether the same was confiscated by the police officer, the same will not alter the
material fact that appellants stabbed the victim. Likewise, any alleged inconsistency as to how
Rico's arm was injured would not change the outcome of this case. The fact remains that the
prosecution satisfactorily established that appellants were the ones who stabbed and killed
the victim. Moreover, it must be stressed that by claiming self-defense, the burden rests upon
appellants to show that the killing was justified. As correctly observed by the RTC and the CA,
appellants miserably failed to prove that the victim was the unlawful aggressor. Their self-
serving testimonies are not only unsubstantiated and bereft of any corroboration, but also
belied by the physical evidence. They also failed to prove the reasonable necessity of the
means employed to repel or prevent the alleged attack coming from the victim. In fact, physical
evidence showed that the victim suffered mortal wounds thus:
Testifying on the anatomical sketch, Dr. Vertido testified that all the four
(4) stab wounds sustained by Romeo were fatal. Stab wound (1) which
damaged the aorta of the heart is located at the right anterior chest of the
victim; stab wound (2), which damaged the intestines, is located at the right
abdominal wall of the stomach of Romeo; stab wound (3), which also
perforated the intestines and liver, is located at the left abdominal wall of
Romeo's stomach; and stab wound (4), which perforated the right lobe of the
lungs, is located at the back of Romeo. Dr. Vertido further testified that all the
stab wounds were caused by a sharp single bladed weapon. Dr. Vertido,
however, qualified that by reason of the nature, size and depth of wound No.
(2) which greatly differs from wounds no. (1) (3) and (4), another sharp bladed
 instrument was used that caused stab wound no. (2) and he thus opined that
there were two (2) assailants using two (2) bladed instruments that caused
these stab wounds. Furthermore, no other injuries, abrasion and/or contusions,
were found by Dr. Vertido, on the body and hands of [the victim]. 17 HEITAD
Both the trial court and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on
the appellants. The award of actual damages in the amount of P17,912.00 is also proper as
this is the amount supported by receipts. 18 Also, both courts correctly awarded civil indemnity
in the amount of P75,000.00. However, the awards of moral damages and exemplary
damages must each be increased from P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 to P75,000.00 and
P30,000.00, respectively, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, all damages
awarded shall earn an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this Resolution until
fully paid.
As regards appellant Demetrio, his criminal liability was totally extinguished by virtue
of his death before final judgment.
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code pertinently provides:
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal
liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgment;
xxx xxx xxx
In People v. Broca, 19 citing People v. Bayotas, 20 the implications of appellant's
demise prior to final judgment was explained, thus:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability
based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this
regard, 'the death of the accused prior to final judgment
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e.,
civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.'
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article
1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of
the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) . . .
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, . . . an action for
recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate
civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending
on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as
explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the
criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended
party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case,
the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code,
that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible
privation of right by prescription. (Citations omitted.)
Given the foregoing, it is clear that the death of the accused pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his civil
liability ex delicto. Since the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there
is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted
therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on the criminal case.
Given the foregoing, Crim. Case No. 13135 should be dismissed insofar as Demetrio
is concerned.
WHEREFORE, the assailed June 26, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03894 is AFFIRMED insofar as appellants Rico Ricaplaza y Canon and
Eddie Ricaplaza y Canon are concerned with MODIFICATIONS that the awards of moral
damages and exemplary damages are each increased to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00,
respectively. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
finality of this Resolution until full payment. Criminal Case No. 13135 is DISMISSED insofar
as appellant Demetrio Ricaplaza y Abalde is concerned on account of his death. (Perez, J.,
designated additional member in view of the leave of absence of Brion, J., per Special Order
No. 2191 dated September 16, 2015; Mendoza, J., recused himself from the case due to prior
action in the Court of Appeals; Villarama, Jr., J., designated additional member per Raffle
dated September 9, 2015.) ATICcS
SO ORDERED."
||| (People v. Ricaplaza y Abalde, G.R. No. 205151 (Notice), [September 16, 2015])