5/25/2017 G.R.No.

158362

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
BaguioCity
THIRDDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, G.R.No.158362
PlaintiffAppellee,
Present:

CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
versus BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
GILBERTOVILLARICO,SR.@ SERENO,JJ.
BERTING,GILBERTO Promulgated:
VILLARICO,JR.,JERRY
RAMENTOS,andRICKY April4,2011
VILLARICO,
AccusedAppellants.
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J:

Theidentificationoftheaccusedasthepersonresponsiblefortheimputedcrimeistheprimaryduty
oftheStateineverycriminalprosecution.Suchidentification,tobepositive,neednotalwaysbeby
directevidencefromaneyewitness,forreliablecircumstantialevidencecanequallyconfirmitasto
overcometheconstitutionallypresumedinnocenceoftheaccused.

OnappealbytheaccusedisthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)promulgatedonJune6,
[1] [2]
2003, findingGilbertoVillarico,Sr.,GilbertoVillarico,Jr.,JerryRamentos, andRickyVillarico
guiltyofmurderforthekillingofHaideCagatan,andimposingthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaon
each of them, thereby modifying the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, in
[3]
TangubCitythathadpronouncedthemguiltyofhomicideaggravatedbydwelling.

Withtreacheryhavingattendedthekilling,weaffirmtheCAbutcorrectthecivilliabilityto
accordwithpertinentlawandjurisprudence.

Antecedents

On October 7, 1999, an information for murder was filed in the Regional Trial Court in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 1/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362

[4]
MisamisOccidental(RTC)againstalltheaccused, theaccusatoryportionofwhichreads:

That on or about August 8, 1999, at about 7:50 oclock in the morning at Barangay Bolinsong,
MunicipalityofBonifacio,ProvinceofMisamisOccidental,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionof
this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another,withintenttokill,armedwithashortfirearms(sic),didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully,
feloniouslysuddenlyandtreacherouslyshootHAIDECAGATANatthebackpenetratingthroughthe
neck which cause(d) the instant death of said victim and that he had no chance to avoid or defend
himselffromtheattack.

CONTRARYTOLAW.


AlltheaccusedpleadednotguiltyattheirDecember15,1999arraignment.

VersionoftheProsecution

Ataround7:50p.m.onAugust8,1999,Haidewasbusypreparingdinnerinthekitchenofhis
familysresidenceinBolinsong,Bonifacio,MisamisOccidental.Thekitchen,locatedattherearofthe
residence, had a wall whose upper portion was made of threefeet high bamboo slats (sasa) and
whoselowerportionwasalsomadeofbambooslatsarrangedlikeachessboardwithfourinchgapsin
between. At that time, Haides sisterinlaw Remedios Cagatan was attending to her child who was
answering the call of nature near the toilet. From where she was, Remedios saw all the accused as
theystoodattherearofthekitchenaimingtheirfirearmsatthedoorRickyVillaricowasattheleft
side, and Gilberto, Jr. stood behind him, while Gilberto, Sr. was at the right side, with Ramentos
behindhim.WhenGilberto,Jr.noticedRemedios,hepointedhisgunather,promptingRemediosto
droptothegroundandtoshouttoLolitaCagatan,hermotherinlawandHaides mother: Nay, Nay
tawoNay(Mother,mother,therearepeopleoutside,mother).Atthatinstant,Remediosheardthree
[5]
gunshots.

FranciscoCagatan,thefatherofHaide,alsoheardthegunshotsjustashewascomingoutof
thetoilet,makinghiminstinctivelyjumpintoahole,fromwherehewasabletoseeandrecognize
Gilberto,Sr.,Gilberto,Jr.andRickywhowerethenstandingbythekitchendoor.Theywereaiming
[6]
theirgunsupward,andsoonafterlefttogetherwithRamentos.

Lolita also heard the gunshots while she was in the sala. She recalled that Haide then came
towardsherfromthekitchen,askingforhelpandsaying:TabangkaygipusilkoniBerting(Iwasshot
[7]
byBerting). Atthat,sheandRemediosbroughtthewoundedHaidetoClinicaOzarraga,wherehe
wastreatedforgunshotwoundsonhisleftscapularregion(backofleftshoulder)andrightelbow.He
[8]
succumbedshortlythereafterduetohypovolemicshockormassivelossofblood.

VersionoftheDefense
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 2/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
VersionoftheDefense

Theaccuseddeniedtheaccusationsandeachprofferedanalibi.

Gilberto,Sr.claimedthathewassleepinginhishomewithafeverwhenheheardagunshot.
[9]
HeinsistedthathelearnedthatHaidehadbeenshotonlyinthenextmorning. Hisdenialandalibi
[10] [11]
werecorroboratedbyhiswifeCarmelita andhisdaughterJersel.

Gilberto, Jr. testified that on the day of the incident, he went to Liloan, Bonifacio, Misamis
Occidentalataround5:00p.m.tovisithisgirlfriendtogetherwithCharlieBacusandRandyHernan.
They stayed there until 9:00 p.m. Thereafter, they proceeded to Tiaman to attend the wake for one
Helen Oligario Cuizon, and were there for an hour. They then returned to Bolinsong and spent the
nightinthehouseofRandy.ItwasonlyinthemorningthatRandysfatherinformedthemthatHaide
[12]
hadbeenshot.

RickydeclaredthathestayedthroughoutthewholeeveningofAugust8,1999inthehouseof
[13] [14]
hisauntFlordeliza. MyrnaHernan,aneighborofFlordeliza,corroboratedhistestimony.

RamentosallegedthathewasdrinkingtubawithothersatthestoreownedbyCinderellaBacus
at the time of the shooting and that he went home at around 9:00 p.m. after his group was done
drinking. He did not recall hearing any gunshots while drinking and came to know of the shooting
onlyfromacertainAnecitoDuyagonthefollowingmorning.

To discredit the testimony about Haide being able to identify his assailants, the Defense
presentedPeterPonggos,whonarratedthathehadbeenonboardamotorcycle(habalhabal)when
LolitaandRemediosaskedforhishelpandthathethenaidedLolitaandRemediosinbringingHaide
tothehospital.AccordingtoPeter,heaskedHaidewhohadshothim,butHaiderepliedthattherehad
[15]
beenonlyoneassailantwhomhedidnotrecognize.
RulingoftheRTC

Aftertrial,theRTCconvictedthefouraccusedofhomicideaggravatedbydwelling,disposing:
[16]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds all the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Homicide, with one aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and applying the
IndeterminateSentenceLaw,herebysentenceseachoneofthemtoapenaltyofimprisonmentranging
from6yearsand1day,asitsminimumto17years,4monthsand1day,asitsmaximum,tosufferthe
accessorypenaltiesprovidedforbylaw,topayjointlyandsolidarily,theheirsofthevictimP50,000.00,
ascivilliabilityandtopaythecosts.

Let all the accused be credited of the time that they were placed in jail under preventive
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 3/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
Let all the accused be credited of the time that they were placed in jail under preventive
imprisonment,applyingtheprovisionsofArt.29oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.
SOORDERED.

TheRTCaccordedfaithtothepositiveidentificationoftheaccusedbytheProsecutionswitnesses,
anddisbelievedtheirdenialandalibisduetotheirfailuretoshowthephysicalimprobabilityforthem
tobeatthecrimescene,forthedistancesbetweenthecrimesceneandtheplaceswheretheaccused
allegedlywereatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimewereshowntorangefromonly100to700
[17]
meters. TheRTCfound,however,thattheProsecutionwasnotabletoprovetreacherybecause:

xxxThemedicalreportofgunshotwoundleftscapularregionwhichthedoctorinterpretedtobeatthe
back of the left shoulder is not sufficient to prove treachery, it being susceptible to 2 different
interpretations:one:thatvictimhadhisbacktowardshisassailants,andtwo:thathewasactuallyfacing
thembutheturnedaroundforcoveruponseeingthearmedgroupofBerting.TheCourtisinclinedto
believe the second interpretation because the victim was able to see and identify his assailants. Two
[18]
prosecutionwitnessestestifiedthatthevictimidentifiedtothemwhoshothim.
RulingoftheCA

On intermediate review, the CA modified the RTCs decision, holding instead that murder was
[19]
establishedbeyondreasonabledoubtbecausethekillingwasattendedbytreachery,viz:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED. Pursuant to Section 13, paragraph 2 of
Rule124oftheRulesofCriminalProcedure,WerenderJUDGMENTwithoutenteringit,asfollows:

1. We find all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER. Each accused is
herebySENTENCEDTOSUFFERthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.

2.TheDivisionClerkofCourtisherebydirectedtoCERTIFYandELEVATEtheentire
recordsofthiscasetotheSupremeCourtforreview.

[20]
SOORDERED.

[21]
CitingPeoplev.Valdez, theCAexplainedthattheattendanceoftreacherydidnotdepend
onthepositionofthevictimatthetimeoftheattack,fortheessenceoftreacherywasintheelement
of surprise the assailants purposely adopted to ensure that the victim would not be able to defend
himself.Consideringthattheaccusedhadpurposelypositionedthemselvesatnightoutsidethedoor

to the kitchen from where they could see Haide, who was then busy preparing dinner, through the
holes of the kitchen wall, the CA concluded that Haide was thus left unaware of the impending
assaultagainsthim.


Issues

Inthisrecourse,theaccusedraisethefollowingerrors:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 4/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362

I
THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINCONVICTINGACCUSEDAPPELLANTSOF
MURDER DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE
ASSAILANTASWELLASACCUSEDAPPELLANTSGUILTBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT INDEED ACCUSED
APPELLANTSAREGUILTY.

The accused contend that the Prosecution witnesses failed to positively identify them as the
persons who had actually shot Haide that treachery was not attendant because there was no proof
showingthattheyhadconsciouslyanddeliberatelyadoptedthemodeofattackingthevictimandthat
assumingthattheycommittedthekilling,theycouldonlybeconvictedofhomicide.

Thedecisivequeriesare,therefore,thefollowing:

(a)Shouldanidentification,tobepositive,havetobemadebyawitnesswhoactually
sawtheassailants?

(b)WastreacheryattendantinthekillingofHaideastoqualifythecrimeasmurder?

Ruling

Weaffirmthefindingofguiltforthecrimeofmurder,butmodifythecivilliability.





1.
Positiveidentificationrefersto
proofofidentityoftheassailant

The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the
criminal, for, even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction
[22]
without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt. In that regard, an
identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any
[23]
evidentiary force. The intervention of any mistake or the appearance of any weakness in the
identificationsimplymeansthattheaccusedsconstitutionalrightofpresumptionofinnocenceuntil
[24]
thecontraryisprovedisnotovercome,therebywarrantinganacquittal, evenifdoubtmaycloud
[25]
his innocence. Indeed, the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to every
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 5/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
his innocence. Indeed, the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to every
individualisforeverofprimaryimportance,andeveryconvictionforcrimemustrestonthestrength
[26]
oftheevidenceoftheState,notontheweaknessofthedefense.

TheaccusedcontendthattheProsecutionwitnessesdidnotactuallyseewhohadshotHaide
hence,theiridentificationasthemalefactorswasnotpositivelyandcrediblymade.

Wecannotupholdthecontentionoftheaccused.


Theestablishedcircumstancesunerringlyshowthatthefouraccusedweretheperpetratorsof
the fatal shooting of Haide. Their identification as his assailants by Remedios and Francisco was
definitelypositiveandbeyondreasonabledoubt.Specifically,Remediossawallthefouraccusednear
thedoortothekitchenimmediatelybeforetheshotswerefiredandrecognizedwhotheywere.She
evensuppliedthedetailthatGilberto,Jr.hadtrainedhisfirearmtowardsheroncehehadnoticedher
presenceatthecrimescene.Onhispart,Franciscoattestedtoseeingtheaccusednearthedoortothe
kitchenholdingtheirfirearmsrightafterheheardthegunshots,andalsorecognizedthem.

The collective recollections of both Remedios and Francisco about seeing the four accused
standingnearthedoortothekitchenimmediatelybeforeandaftertheshootingofHaideinsidethe
kitchenwerecategoricalenough,andwarrantednootherlogicalinferencethanthatthefouraccused
were the persons who had just shot Haide. Indeed, neither Remedios nor Francisco needed to have
actuallyseenwhooftheaccusedhadfiredatHaide,foritwasenoughthattheytestifiedthatthefour
armedaccused:(a)hadstrategicallypositionedthemselvesbythekitchendoorpriortotheshooting
of Haide (b) had still been in the same positions after the gunshots were fired and (c) had
continuouslyaimedtheirfirearmsatthekitchendoorevenastheywereleavingthecrimescene.

ThecloserelationshipofRemediosandFranciscowiththevictimaswellastheirfamiliarity
with the accused who were their neighbors assured the certainty of their identification as Haides
[27]
assailants.InMarturillasv.People, theCourtobservedthatthefamiliarityofthewitnesswiththe
assailanterasedanydoubtthatthewitnesscouldhaveerredandnotedthatawitnessrelatedtothe
victim had a natural tendency to remember the faces of the person involved in the attack on the
victim,becauserelatives,morethananybodyelse,wouldbeconcernedwithseekingjusticeforthe
[28]
victimandbringingthemalefactorbeforethelaw.

Moreover,thefollowingportionsofLolitastestimonyshowthatHaidehimselfrecognizedand
identifiedhisassailants,towit:

Atty.Fernandez:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 6/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
Atty.Fernandez:
Q.Andwherewereyouatthattimewhenhewasshot?
A.Inthesala.
Q.CouldyoupossiblytelltheHonorableCourtwhatactuallytookplacewhenyoursonwasshot?
A.HecamefromthekitchenatthattimewhenIheardgunreports,hesaidNayhelpmebecauseI
[29]
wasshotbyBerting.
xxx
Atty.Anonat:
Q.AndthataffidavitwasexecutedbyyouattheBonifacioPoliceStation?
A.Yes.
xxx
Q.Andyouaffirmtothetruthofwhatyouhavestatedinthisaffidavit?
A.Yes.
Q.OnquestionNo.7youwereaskedinthismannerGiunsamannimopagkasayodngasilamaoy
responsible sa kamatayon sa imong anak? How do you know that they were responsible
(for)thedeathofyourson?AndyouransweristhisTungodkayangbiktimanakasultipa
mansawalapasiyanamatayugangiyangpulongmaongaTABANGNAYKAYGIPUSIL
KO NILA NI BERTING ug nasayod ako nga sila gumikan sa akong mga testigos. which
translated into English Because the victim was able to talk before he died and the words
whichhetoldmehelpmeNayIamshotbythegroupofBertingandIknowthisbecauseof
[30]
mywitnesses.
xxx

ThestatementofHaidetohismotherthathehadjustbeenshotbythegroupofBertinguttered
intheimmediateaftermathoftheshootingwherehewasthevictimwasatruepartoftheresgestae.
ThestatementwasadmissibleagainsttheaccusedasanexceptiontothehearsayruleunderSection
42,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:

Section42.Partoftheresgestae.Statementsmadebyapersonwhileastartlingoccurrenceis
takingplaceorimmediatelypriororsubsequenttheretowithrespecttothecircumstancesthereof,may
be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
materialtotheissue,andgivingitalegalsignificance,maybereceivedaspartoftheresgestae.(36a)

Thetermresgestaereferstothosecircumstanceswhicharetheundesignedincidentsofaparticular
[31]
litigatedactandwhichareadmissiblewhenillustrativeofsuchact. Inageneralway,res gestae
includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
illustrateitscharacterandwhicharesospontaneousandcontemporaneouswiththemainfactasto
[32]
exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the
exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime
immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the
circumstancesaresuchthatthestatementsweremadeasaspontaneousreactionorutteranceinspired
bytheexcitementoftheoccasionandtherewasnoopportunityforthedeclaranttodeliberateandto
[33]
fabricateafalsestatement.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 7/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362

The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizesastoberegardedapartoftheprincipalfactoreventitself,andalsowhetheritclearly
[34]
negativesanypremeditationorpurposetomanufacturetestimony. Adeclarationoranutteranceis
thusdeemedaspartoftheresgestaethatisadmissibleinevidenceasanexceptiontothehearsayrule
whenthefollowingrequisitesconcur:(a)theprincipalact,theresgestae, is a startling occurrence
(b) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise and (c) the
[35]
statementsmustconcerntheoccurrenceinquestionanditsimmediatelyattendingcircumstances.

We find that the requisites concurred herein. Firstly, the principal act the shooting of Haide was a
startlingoccurrence.Secondly,hisstatementtohismotheraboutbeingshotbythegroupofBerting
wasmadebeforeHaidehadtimetocontriveortodeviseconsideringthatitwasutteredimmediately
aftertheshooting.And,thirdly,thestatementdirectlyconcernedthestartlingoccurrenceitselfandits
attendingcircumstance(thatis,theidentitiesoftheassailants).Verily,thestatementwasreliableas
partoftheresgestaeforbeingutteredinspontaneityandonlyinreactiontothestartlingoccurrence.

Inthefaceofthepositiveidentificationofallthefouraccused,itdidnotmatterwhetheronly
oneortwoofthemhadactuallyfiredthefatalshots.Theiractionsindicatedthataconspiracyexisted
amongthem.Indeed,aconspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerning
[36]
thecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit. Directproofofapreviousagreementamong
[37]
theaccusedtocommitthecrimeisnotnecessary, forconspiracymaybeinferredfromtheconduct

of the accused at the time of their commission of the crime that evinces a common understanding
[38]
among them on perpetrating the crime. Thus, the concerted acts of the four manifested their
agreementtokillHaide,resultingineachofthembeingguiltyofthecrimeregardlessofwhetherhe
actuallyfiredatthevictimornot.Itisaxiomaticthatonceconspiracyisestablished,theactofoneis
[39] [40]
theactofall andthatalltheconspiratorsarethenliableascoprincipals.

But did not the fact that the name Berting without any surname being too generic open the
identificationoftheaccusedastheassailantstodisquietingdoubtabouttheircomplicity?

We hold that there was no need for a surname to be attached to the nickname Berting in order to
insulatetheidentificationbyHaidefromchallenge.Thevictimsresgestaestatementwasonlyoneof
the competent and reliable pieces of identification evidence. As already shown, the accused were
competently incriminated also by Remedios and Francisco in a manner that warranted the logical
inferencethatthey,andnoothers,weretheassailants.Also,thatBertingwasthenaturalnicknamefor
a person whose given name was Gilberto, like herein accused Gilberto, Sr. and Gilberto, Jr., was a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 8/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
a person whose given name was Gilberto, like herein accused Gilberto, Sr. and Gilberto, Jr., was a
matter of common knowledge in the Philippines. In fine, the pieces of identification evidence,
includingHaidesresgestaestatement,collaboratedtorendertheiridentificationunassailable.

Relevantly, the Court has distinguished two types of positive identification in People v.
[41]
Gallarde, namely:(a)thatbydirectevidence,throughaneyewitnesstotheverycommissionof
theactand(b)thatbycircumstantialevidence,suchaswheretheaccusedislastseenwiththevictim
immediatelybeforeorafterthecrime.TheCourtsaid:

xxxPositiveidentificationpertainsessentiallytoproofofidentityandnotpersetothatofbeing
an eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are two types of positive
identification.Awitnessmayidentifyasuspectoraccusedinacriminalcaseastheperpetratorofthe
crimeasaneyewitnesstotheveryactofthecommissionofthecrime.Thisconstitutesdirectevidence.
Theremay,however,beinstanceswhere,althoughawitnessmaynothaveactuallyseentheveryact
of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the
perpetratorofacrimeasforinstancewhenthelatteristhepersonoroneofthepersonslastseen
withthevictimimmediatelybeforeandrightafterthecommissionofthecrime.Thisisthesecond
typeofpositiveidentification,whichformspartofcircumstantialevidence,which,whentakentogether
with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable
conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others. If the
actualeyewitnessesaretheonlyonesallowedtopossiblypositivelyidentifyasuspectoraccusedtothe
exclusionofothers,thennobodycaneverbeconvictedunlessthereisaneyewitness,becauseitisbasic
andelementarythattherecanbenoconvictionuntilandunlessanaccusedispositivelyidentified.Such
a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is settled that direct evidence of the commission of a
crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. If
resorttocircumstantialevidencewouldnotbeallowedtoproveidentityoftheaccusedontheabsence
of directevidence,then felons would go free and the community would be deniedproperprotection.
[42]

Toconclude,theidentificationofamalefactor,tobepositiveandsufficientforconviction,does
notalwaysrequiredirectevidencefromaneyewitnessotherwise,noconvictionwillbepossiblein
crimes where there are no eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy circumstantial evidence can equally
confirmtheidentificationandovercometheconstitutionallypresumedinnocenceoftheaccused.

Facedwiththeirpositiveidentification,thefouraccusedhadtoestablishconvincingdefenses.They
opted to rely on denial and their respective alibis, however, but both the RTC and the CA rightly
rejectedsuchdefenses.

The rejection was warranted. Long judicial experience instructs that their denial and alibis,
being too easy to invent, could not overcome their positive identification by credible Prosecution
witnesses whose motives for the identification were not shown to be ill or vile. Truly, a positive
identification that is categorical, consistent, and devoid of any showing of ill or vile motive on the
part of the Prosecution witnesses always prevails over alibi and denial that are in the nature of
[43]
negativeandselfservingevidence. Tobeaccepted,thedenialandalibimustbesubstantiatedby
clear and convincing evidence establishing not only that the accused did not take part in the
commissionoftheimputedcriminalactbutalsothatitwasphysicallyimpossiblefortheaccusedto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 9/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
commissionoftheimputedcriminalactbutalsothatitwasphysicallyimpossiblefortheaccusedto
be at or near the place of the commission of the act at or about the time of its commission. In
addition, their proffered alibis were really unworthy of credit because only the accused themselves
[44]
andtheirrelativesandotherintimatessubstantiatedthem.
2.
Theessenceoftreacheryisinthemodeofattack,
notintherelativepositionofthevictimandtheassailant

TheRTCruledouttheattendanceoftreacheryduetoitspersuasionthatthevictimmusthavebeen
facinghisassailantsatthetimeoftheassaultandwasthusnottakenbysurprise.TheCAdiffered
from the RTC, however, and stressed that regardless of the position of the victim, the essence of
treacherywastheelementofsurprisethattheassailantspurposelyadoptedtoensurethatthevictim
[45]
wasnotabletodefendhimself.

WeupholdtherulingoftheCA.

Thereistreacherywhen:(a)atthetimeoftheattack,thevictimwasnotinapositiontodefend
himselfand(b)theaccusedconsciouslyanddeliberatelyadoptedtheparticularmeans,methods,or
[46]
formsofattackemployedbyhim. The essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack

[47]
thatleavesthevictimunabletodefendhimself,therebyensuringthecommissionoftheoffense. It
isthesuddennessoftheattackcoupledwiththeinabilityofthevictimtodefendhimselfortoretaliate
thatbringsabouttreacheryconsequently,treacherymaystillbeappreciatedevenifthevictimwas
[48]
facingtheassailant.

Here,theelementsoftreacherywerepresent.HisassailantsgunnedHaidedownwhilehewas
preoccupied in the kitchen of his own abode with getting dinner ready for the household. He was
absolutelyunawareoftheimminentdeadlyassaultfromoutsidethekitchen,andwasforthatreason
innopositiontodefendhimselfortorepelhisassailants.

TheargumentoftheaccusedthattheProsecutiondidnotshowthattheyhadconsciouslyand
deliberatelyadoptedthemannerofkillingHaidehadnosubstance,forthetestimoniesofRemedios
andFranciscodisclosethecontrary.

Remediostestimonyaboutseeingthefouraccusedtakingpositionsnearthedoortothekitchen
immediatelyprecedingtheshootingofHaidewasasfollows:

Atty.Fernandez:
xxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 10/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
xxx
Q.WereyoupresentwhenthelateHaideCagatanwasshot?
A.Yes,Iwaspresent.
Q.CouldyoupossiblytelltheCourtinwhatparticularplaceyouwerewhentheallegedincidenttook
place?
A.Iwasinthegroundfloor.
Q.Whatwereyoudoingthere?
A.Iattendedmychild(to)answer(ing)thecallofhis(sic)nature.
Q.Now,couldyoupossiblydescribebeforethisHonorableCourt,Mrs.Cagatan,theexacteventthat
tookplacewhentheallegedshootingincidenttookplaceinyourpresence?
A.Atthattime,Iattendedmychild(to)answer(ing)thecallof(his)natureandafterdoingthat
when I was about to stand up to go up I saw the Villaricos was (sic) at the back of the
kitchen.
Q.Atthetimeyousawthemwas(sic)anyoneofthemsawyoulikewise?
A.Therewas.
Q.Whowashe?
A.GilbertoVillarico,Jr.
Q.Atthatprecisetimewhenyousawthemandoneofthemsawyou,whatdidVillarico,Jr.do?
A.Heaimedhisguntome.
Q.CouldyoupossiblydemonstratethattotheCourt?
A.(Witnessdemonstratedbysquattingposition)
Q.NowatthatprecisemomentwhenyousawVillarico,Jr.onasquattingpositionpointinghis
gunatyou,whatwastheexactactionthatyoudid?
A.WhenheaimedhisguntomeIimmediatelydroppedtotheground.
xxx
Q. Since you were personally present could you still remember Mrs. Cagatan how many gun
burstyouheadatthatprecisemomentwhenyoudroppedtothegroundbecauseVillarico
Jr.wasaiminghisgunatyou.Howmanygunburstdidyouhear?
A.Threegunbursts.
Q.LetusgobacktothetimewhenVillarico,Jr.pointedhisguntoyou.Doyoustillremember
whatweretheotheraccuseddoingorwhereweretheyatthattime?
A.Icanremember.
Q.PleasetelltheHonorableCourt.
A.Gilberto Villarico, Sr. was on the right side Ricky Villarico was on the left side and behind
Gilberto Villarico, Sr. was Jerry Ramientos and behind Ricky Villarico is (sic) Gilberto
VillaricoJr.
Q.WhatwereRickyandGilbertoVillarico,Jr.doingatthetime?
A.Theywerealsodroppingthemselvesonthegroundandaimedtheirguns.
Q.Towhatparticularobjectthattheywereaimingtheirguns?
A.Tothedoorofourkitchen.



Q. How about Ramientos, where was he at that time when you saw the accused pointing their
gunstowardsthedoorofyourkitchen?
[49]
A.RamientoswasstandingbehindGilbertoVillaricoSr.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 11/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
[49]
A.RamientoswasstandingbehindGilbertoVillaricoSr.

Likewise,FranciscosawthefouraccusedinthesamepositionsthatRemedioshadseenthem
moments prior to the shooting. He claimed that they were aiming their firearms at the kitchen and
continuedaimingtheirfirearmsevenastheywereleavingthecrimescene,viz:

Atty.Fernandez:
xxx
Q.Now you said that you saw all of the accused at the time when your late son Haide Cagatan was
murderedintheeveningofAugust8.CouldyoupossiblyexplaintothisHonorableCourtatthe
veryfirsttimewhatdidyousee?
A.AfterIcamefromthetoiletIwasproceedingtothekitchenbecauseHaidewaspreparingfoodand
he was calling for dinner. When Haide Cagatan was calling for dinner and at the time I was
proceedingtothedoorofthekitchen,whenIwasnearthedoorIheardthegunshots.
Q.Atthetimewhenyouheardgunshots,whatdidyoudo?
A.Ilaiddownflatonthegroundwhilemyheadis(sic)lookingupandthereIsawthe3Villaricos
bringingarevolver.Theycamefromaimingtheirgunstowardsupstairsandtheyareabout
towithdrawfromthatplacetogetherwithJerryRamientos.
xxx
Q.Now,sinceyousaidthatyousawtheaccusedVillaricos,couldyoupossiblytelltheCourt,what
weretheirresponsibleposition(s)inrelationtothedoorofthekitchen?
A.Theywereinshootingpositionastheyaimedupwardandtheywerebringingrevolveraiming
upstairs.
Q. In relation to the door of the kitchen, could you possibly tell the Court what were their
responsiblepositionatthattimewhenyousawthem?
A.Thefourofthemweresituatedinfrontofthekitchendoor.VillaricoJr.andVillaricoSr.were
facing each other while Ricky Villarico and Jerry Ramientos were also facing each other.
[50]

The testimonies of Remedios and Francisco on how and where the four accused had
deliberately and strategically positioned themselves could not but reveal their deliberate design to
therebyensuretheaccomplishmentoftheirdesigntokillHaidewithoutanypossibilityofhisescape
orofanyretaliationfromhim.AptlydidtheCAobserve:

AperusaloftheinformationshowsthattreacherywasproperlyallegedtoqualifythekillingofHeide
[sic]Cagatantomurder.Theprosecutionwaslikewiseabletoprovetreacherythroughtheelementof
surpriserenderingthevictimunabletodefendhimself.Inthiscase,theevidenceshowsthatthevictim,
whowasinthekitchenpreparingdinner,couldbeseenfromtheoutsidethroughtheholesofthewall.
Thewitnessesconsistentlydescribedthekitchenswallasthreefeethighbamboosplits(sasa),accented
with bamboo splits woven to look like a chessboard with 4inch holes in between. The accused
appellants,likewise,positionedthemselvesoutsidethekitchendooratnightwherethevictimcouldnot
[51]
seethem.Whentheaccusedappellantsshothim,hewascaughtunaware.

3.
PenaltyandDamages

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 12/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362

There is no question that the CA justly pronounced all the four accused guilty beyond
[52]
reasonabledoubtofmurder,andpunishedthemwithreclusionperpetuapursuanttoArticle248 of
the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code,
consideringtheabsenceofanygenericaggravatingcircumstance.

However,theCAdidnotexplainwhyitdidnotreviewandrevisethegrantbytheRTCofcivil
liabilityintheamountofonlyP50,000.00.Thereby,theCAcommittedaplainlyreversibleerrorfor
[53]
ignoringexistinglaws,likeArticle2206oftheCivilCode, which prescribes a death indemnity
[54]
separately from moral damages, and Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which requires exemplary
damages in case of death due to crime when there is at least one aggravating circumstance and
[55]
applicable jurisprudence, specifically, People v. Gutierrez, where we held that moral damages
shouldbeawardedtotheheirswithoutneedofprooforpleadinginviewoftheviolentdeathofthe
[56]
victim,andPeoplev.Catubig, where weruledthatexemplarydamageswerewarrantedwhenever
the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary. Here, the
aggravatingcircumstanceoftreachery,albeitattendantorqualifyinginitseffect,justifiedthegrantof
exemplarydamages.

Plain oversight might have caused both the RTC and the CA to lapse into the serious
omissions.Nonetheless,arectificationshouldnowbemade,for,indeed,grossomissions,intendedor
not, should be eschewed. It is timely, therefore, to remind and to exhort all the trial and appellate
courts to be always mindful of and to apply the pertinent laws and jurisprudence on the kinds and
amountsofindemnitiesanddamagesappropriateincriminalcaseslestoversightandomissionwill
unduly add to the sufferings of the victims or their heirs. Nor should the absence of specific
assignmentoferrorthereoninhibitthesuasponterectificationoftheomissions,forthegrantofall
theproperkindsandamountsofcivilliabilitytothevictimorhisheirsisamatteroflawandjudicial
policynotdependentuponorcontrolledbyanassignmentoferror.Anappellatetribunalhasabroad
discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not
[57]
assigned, fortechnicalityshouldnotbeallowedtostandinthewayofequitablyandcompletely
resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. Indeed, the trend in modern day procedure is to
accordbroaddiscretionarypowersuchthattheappellatecourtmayconsidermattersbearingonthe
[58]
issuessubmittedforresolutionthatthepartiesfailedtoraiseorthatthelowercourtignored.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we grant to the heirs of Haide P75,000.00 as death
[59] [60] [61]
indemnity P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. As
[62]
clarifiedinPeoplev.Arbalate, damagesinsuchamountsaretobegrantedwhenevertheaccused
are adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659, like the murder charged and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 13/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
are adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659, like the murder charged and
[63] [64]
provedherein.Indeed,theCourt,observinginPeoplev.Sarcia, citingPeople v. Salome and
[65]
Peoplev.Quiachon, thattheprincipalconsiderationfortheawardofdamagesxxxisthepenalty
provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty
actuallyimposedontheoffender,announcedthat:

Thelitmustest[,]therefore,inthedeterminationofthecivilindemnityistheheinouscharacterof
the crime committed, which would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty, regardless of
whetherthepenaltyactuallyimposedisreducedtoreclusionperpetua.


WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision promulgated on June 6, 2003 in CAG.R. CR No.
24711, finding GILBERTO VILLARICO, SR., GILBERTO VILLARICO, JR., JERRY

RAMENTOS, and RICKY VILLARICO guilty of murder and sentencing each of them to suffer
reclusionperpetua,subjecttothemodificationthattheyareheldjointlyandsolidarilyliabletopayto
theheirsofthelateHaideCagatandeathindemnityofP75,000.00,moraldamagesofP75,000.00,and
exemplarydamagesofP30,000.00.

Theaccusedshallpaythecostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:




CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




ARTUROD.BRIONMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 14/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice



ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson


CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
CA Rollo,pp.173184pennedbyAssociateJusticeHakimS.Abdulwahid,andconcurredbyAssociateJusticeBennieAdefuinDela
Cruz(retired)andJoseI.Sabio,Jr.(retired).
[2]
AttimesspelledasRamientosintherecordsandintheRTCdecision.
[3]
Rollo,pp.4569pennedbyJudgeResurrectionT.Inting.
[4]
Records,pp.12.
[5]
TSN,March29,2000,pp.56.
[6]
TSN,March10,2000,pp.67.
[7]
TSN,February24,2000,pp.19and24.
[8]
SeeExhibitsAandBfortheProsecution(Records,pp.5354).
[9]
TSN,May31,2000,pp.45.
[10]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 15/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
[10]
TSN,July21,2000,pp.317.
[11]
TSN,April11,2000,pp.4358.
[12]
TSN,May31,2000,p.1415.
[13]
TSN,June29,2000,pp.45.
[14]
TSN,April4,2000,pp.4557.
[15]
TSN,April4,2000,pp.317.
[16]
Records,p.138.
[17]
ThedistancebetweenthehouseofGilberto,Sr.andHaideshousewasonly100meters(TSN,May31,2000,p.21).Gilbert,Jr.testified
thathisgirlfriendshousewasonly500metersawayfromBolinsong(TSN,May31,2000,pp.1921).Rickyclaimedthatthehouseofhis
auntwasonly700metersfromHaideshouse(TSN,June29,2000,p.9).
[18]
Records,p.137.
[19]
CARollo,p.173184.
[20]
Id.,p.183.
[21]
G.R.No.127663,March11,1999,304SCRA611,wheretheCourtpointedout:
Underparagraph16,Article14oftheRevisedPenalCode,thequalifyingcircumstanceoftreacheryispresentwhentheoffender
employsmeans,methods,orformsintheexecutionofthecrimewhichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoensureitsexecutionwithoutrisk
tohimselfarisingfromanydefensiveorretaliatoryactwhichthevictimmightmake(Peoplevs.Santos,270SCRA650[1997]). The
settledruleisthattreacherycanexisteveniftheattackisfrontalifitissuddenandunexpected,givingthevictimnoopportunityto
repelitordefendhimselfagainstsuchattack.Whatisdecisiveisthattheexecutionoftheattack,withoutslightestprovocationfrom
thevictimwhoisunarmed,madeitimpossibleforthevictimtodefendhimselfortoretaliate(People vs. Javier,269SCRA181
[1997]).

[22]
Peoplev.Pineda,G.R.No.141644,May27,2004,429SCRA478Peoplev.Esmale,G.R.Nos.10298182,April21,1995,243SCRA
578.
[23]
Peoplev.Fronda,G.R.No.130602.March15,2000,328SCRA185Natividadv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L40233,June25,1980,
98SCRA335,346Peoplev.Beltran,L31860,November29,1974,61SCRA246,250Peoplev.Manambit,G.R.Nos.7274445,April
18,1997,271SCRA344,377Peoplev.Maongco,G.R.Nos.10896365,March1,1994,230SCRA562,575.
[24]
Peoplev.Raquel,G.R.No.119005,December2,1996265SCRA248,259Peoplev.Salguero,G.R.No.89117,June19,1991,198
SCRA357Natividadv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.L40233,June25,1980,98SCRA335,346.
[25]
Pechov.People,G.R.No.111399,September27,1996,262SCRA518,533Perezv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.Nos.7620304,December
6,1989,180SCRA9Peoplev.Sadie,No.L66907,April14,1987,149SCRA240U.S.v.Gutierrez,4Phil.493(1905).
[26]
Peoplev.Pidia,G.R.No.112264,November10,1995,249SCRA687,702.
[27]
G.R.No.163217,April18,2006,487SCRA273.
[28]
Id.,p.301seealsoPeoplev.Evangelista,G.R.No.8433233,May8,1996,256SCRA611(holdingthatwheretheidentificationmade
bythewifeofthevictimwasheldtobereliablebecauseshehadknowntheaccusedforalongtimeandwasfamiliarwithhim,considering
her being positive that it was the accused who had shot her husband although she saw only the back part and the body contour of the
assailant.Atthetimeshesawhim,theaccusedwasonlyfourmetersaway,andtherewassufficientilluminationfromalamppostsixmeters
awayfromthehouseofthevictimandhiswife)Peoplev.Jacolo,G.R.No.94470,December16,1992,216SCRA631(holdingthatwhere
theconditionsofvisibilitywerefavorableandthewitnessdidnotappeartobebiasedagainstthemanonthedock,hisorherassertionsasto
theidentityofthemalefactorshouldnormallybeaccepted,moresowherethewitnesseswerethevictims,ornearrelativesofthevictims,
becausethesepeopleusuallystrovetorememberthefacesoftheassailants).
[29]
TSN,February24,2000,p.19boldemphasissupplied.
[30]
Id.,p.24boldemphasissupplied.
[31]
AlhambraBldg.&LoanAssnv.DeCelle,118P.2d19,47C.A.2d409ReillyTar&ChemicalCorp.v.Lewis,61N.E.2d297,326Ill.
App.117.
[32]
Kaikov.Dolinger,440A.2d198,184Conn.509SouthernSuretyCo.v.Weaver,Com.App.273S.W.838.
[33]
Peoplev.Sanchez,G.R.No.74740,August28,1992,213SCRA70.
[34]
Molloyv.ChicagoRapidTransitCo.,166N.E.530,335Ill.164Campbellv.Gladden,118A.2d133,383Pa.144,53A.L.R.2d1222.
[35]
Peoplev.Guillermo,G.R.No.147786,January20,2004,420SCRA326Peoplev.DelaCruz,G.R.No.152176,October1,2003,412
SCRA503Peoplev.Ignas,G.R.Nos.14051415,September30,2003,412SCRA311Peoplev.Lobrigas,G.R.No.147649,December17,
2002,394SCRA170Peoplev.Peralta,G.R.No.94570,September28,1994,237SCRA218Peoplev.Maguikay,G.R.Nos.10322628,
October14,1994,237SCRA587,600.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 16/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
October14,1994,237SCRA587,600.
[36]
Article8,RevisedPenalCode.
[37]
Peoplev.Ronquillo,G.R.No.126136,April5,2002,380SCRA266Peoplev.Geguira,G.R.No.130769,March13,2000,328SCRA
11,3233.
[38]
Peoplev.Geguira,supra.
[39]
Peoplev.Sotes,G.R.No.101337,August7,1996,260SCRA353,365Peoplev.Pablo,G.R.Nos.12039497,January16,2001,349
SCRA79.
[40]
Peoplev.Peralta,G.R.No.L19069,October29,1968,25SCRA759,776777Peoplev.Pablo,supra.

[41]
G.R.No.133025,February17,2000,325SCRA835.
[42]
Id.,atpp.849850boldemphasissupplied.
[43]
Peoplev.Gonzales,G.R.No.140676,July31,2002,385SCRA573,580Peoplev.Ocampo,G.R.No.80262,September1,1993,226
SCRA1Peoplev.Herico,G.R.Nos.8968283,December21,1990,192SCRA655Peoplev.Fulinara,G.R.No.88326,August3,1995,
247SCRA28Peoplev.Cardesan,G.R.No.L29090,April29,1974,56SCRA631.
[44]
Peoplev.Abendan,G.R.No.13202627,June28,2001,360SCRA106,121122.
[45]
CARollo,p.182.
[46]
Peoplev.Escote,Jr.,G.R.No.140756,April4,2003,400SCRA603,632Peoplev.Ave,G.R.Nos.13727475,October18,2002,391
SCRA225,246.
[47]
Peoplev.Sanchez,G.R.No.188610,June29,2010Peoplev.DelaCruz,G.R.No.188353,February16,2010,612SCRA738,747
Peoplev.Escote,Jr.,supra,pp.632633.
[48]
Peoplev.Aguilar,88Phil693(1951).
[49]
TSN,March29,2000,pp.56.
[50]
TSN,March10,2000,pp.57.
[51]
CARollo,pp.182183.
[52]
Article248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofArticle246shallkillanother,shallbeguiltyofmurderand
shallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetuatodeath,ifcommittedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
1.Withtreachery,takingadvantageofsuperiorstrength,withtheaidofarmedmen,oremployingmeanstoweakenthedefenseorof
meansorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunity.
2.Inconsiderationofaprice,reward,orpromise.
3.Bymeansofinundation,fire,poison,explosion,shipwreck,strandingofavessel,derailmentorassaultuponarailroad,fallofan
airship,orbymeansofmotorvehicles,orwiththeuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin.
4.Onoccasionofanyofthecalamitiesenumeratedintheprecedingparagraph,orofanearthquake,eruptionofavolcano,destructive
cyclone,epidemicorotherpubliccalamity.
5.Withevidentpremeditation.
6.Withcruelty,bydeliberatelyandinhumanlyaugmentingthesufferingofthevictim,oroutragingorscoffingathispersonorcorpse.
(AsamendedbySection6,RepublicActNo.7659,approvedonDecember13,1993).
[53]
Article2206.Theamountofdamagesfordeathcausedbyacrimeorquasidelictshallbeatleastthreethousandpesos,eventhough
theremayhavebeenmitigatingcircumstances.Inaddition:
(1)Thedefendantshallbeliableforthelossoftheearningcapacityofthedeceased,andtheindemnityshallbepaidtotheheirsofthelatter
suchindemnityshallineverycasebeassessedandawardedbythecourt,unlessthedeceasedonaccountofpermanentphysicaldisability
notcausedbythedefendant,hadnoearningcapacityatthetimeofhisdeath
(2)Ifthedeceasedwasobligedtogivesupportaccordingtotheprovisionsofarticle291,therecipientwhoisnotanheircalledtothe
decedentsinheritancebythelawoftestateorintestatesuccession,maydemandsupportfromthepersoncausingthedeath,foraperiodnot
exceedingfiveyears,theexactdurationtobefixedbythecourt
(3)Thespouse,legitimateandillegitimatedescendantsandascendantsofthedeceasedmaydemandmoraldamagesformentalanguishby
reasonofthedeathofthedeceased.
[54]
Art.2230.Incriminaloffenses,exemplarydamagesasapartofthecivilliabilitymaybeimposedwhenthecrimewascommittedwith
oneormoreaggravatingcircumstances.Suchdamagesareseparateanddistinctfromfinesandshallbepaidtotheoffendedparty.
[55]
G.R.No.188602,February4,2010,611SCRA633.
[56]
G.R.No.137842,August23,2001,363SCRA621,wheretheCourtexplained:
ThetermaggravatingcircumstancesusedbytheCivilCode,thelawnothavingspecifiedotherwise,istobeunderstoodinits
broadorgenericsense.Thecommissionofanoffensehasatwoprongedeffect,oneonthepublicasitbreachesthesocialorderand
theotherupontheprivatevictimasitcausespersonalsufferings,eachofwhichisaddressedby,respectively,theprescriptionof
heavierpunishmentfortheaccusedandbyanawardofadditionaldamagestothevictim.Theincreaseofthepenaltyorashifttoa
graverfelonyunderscorestheexacerbationoftheoffensebytheattendanceofaggravatingcircumstances,whetherordinaryor
qualifying,initscommission.UnlikethecriminalliabilitywhichisbasicallyaStateconcern,theawardofdamages,however,is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 17/18
5/25/2017 G.R.No.158362
qualifying,initscommission.UnlikethecriminalliabilitywhichisbasicallyaStateconcern,theawardofdamages,however,is
likewise,ifnotprimarily,intendedfortheoffendedpartywhosuffersthereby.Itwouldmakelittlesenseforanawardofexemplary
damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is
qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of
consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an
aggravatingcircumstance,whetherordinaryorqualifying,shouldentitletheoffendedpartytoanawardofexemplarydamageswithin
theunbridledmeaningofArticle2230oftheCivilCode.

[57]
Bersamin,AppealandReviewinthePhilippines,2nd Edition,CentralProfessionalBooks,QuezonCity,p.180citingHydroResources
Contractors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85714, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 309, 315 and Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa
GermanAirlines,G.R.No.L28773,June30,1975,64SCRA610.
[58]
Ibid.,citingCasaFilipinaRealtyCorporationv.OfficeofthePresident,G.R.No.99346,February7,1995,241SCRA165.
[59]
Peoplev.Satonero,G.R.No.186233,October2,2009,602SCRA769,782Peoplev.Arbalate,G.R.No.183457,September17,2009,
600SCRA239,255.
[60]
Peoplev.Martinez,G.R.No.182687,July23,2009,593SCRA732.
[61]
Peoplev.Satonero,supra.
[62]
Supra,note59.
[63]
G.R.No.169641,September10,2009,599SCRA20,
[64]
G.R.No.169077,August31,2006,500SCRA659,676.
[65]
G.R.No.170236,August31,2006,500SCRA704,720.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/158362.htm 18/18