Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

G.R. No.

146697 July 23, 2002 "WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Fabre, his wife, merit any better regard. At first, she testified
LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE alias Nardo, that on the day of the rape incident, she had left their house
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of at four o'clock in the afternoon. Later, however, she changed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under her story by saying that she had left the house in the
vs.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as morning and returned only at ten o'clock that same morning,
LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE, accused-appellant.
amended by R.A. No. 7659 Section 11 thereof and staying home the whole day thereafter. In any event, in order
hereby imposes upon the accused Leonardo that alibi might prosper, it would not be enough for an
VITUG, J.: Fabre y Vicente alias Nardo the penalty of DEATH; accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the
to pay the victim Marilou Fabre civil indemnity in crime was committed; he would have to demonstrate
the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) likewise that he could not have been physically present at
Leonardo Fabre was adjudged guilty by the Regional Trial PESOS and the costs."3 the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time
Court, Br. VI, of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, of raping his of its commission.7 Clearly, in the instant case, it was not at
own daughter Marilou Fabre, and he was sentenced to suffer all impossible nor even improbable for appellant to have
the extreme penalty of death. In this automatic review, the convicted accused assigned the
been at the crime scene.
following alleged errors committed by the court a quo.
Fabre was indicted in an Information that read:1 Upon the other hand, the evidently candid and
"I
straightforward testimony of Marilou should be more than
"That on or about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of enough to rebut the claim of innocence made by appellant.8
April 26, 1995 in the house of the accused located "THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
at Manat, Trento, Agusan del Sur, Philippines and GIVING CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-
On 26 April 1995, around four o'clock in the afternoon,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL.
Marilou Fabre was alone in their house in Barangay Manat,
above-named accused by force, threats and Trento, Agusan del Sur. Adela Fabre, her mother, had gone
intimidation, with lewd design, did then and there
"II to Purok 4 to buy fish while her siblings were out strolling.
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in After cleaning their yard, Marilou went to the adjacent palm
having sexual intercourse with his own daughter plantation, about fourteen to fifteen meters away from their
MARILOU FABRE, a girl thirteen (13) years of "ASSUMING IN ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED- house, to gather palm oil. Marilou had been gathering palm
age, of good reputation, against her will and APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT oil for about a minute when her father, appellant Leonardo
consent to the damage and prejudice of the said GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH Fabre, arrived. He suddenly gripped Marilou's hands and
victim consisting of moral, actual and SENTENCE UPON ACCUSED-APPELLANT forcibly dragged her towards the house. He closed the door
compensatory damages." DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION and removed his daughter's underwear. He took off his pants
TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL AGE OF MARILOU and asked Marilou to hold his sex organ. In tears, Marilou
FABRE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF
Accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. At the trial, obeyed her father. He then began touching the girl's breasts
THE ALLEGED RAPE."4
the prosecution presented the testimony of Marilou, that of and vagina. He forced her to lie down, mounted her and
Adela Fabre, her mother and the wife of the accused, and sought to insert his penis into her organ. Marilou cried in
that of Dr. Reinerio Jalalon, the doctor who examined The defense argues, rather desperately, that the testimony of pain. When after some time he still could not insert his penis
Marilou, along with the medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. appellant should acquire added strength for the failure of the into Marilou's vagina, he applied coconut oil to lubricate his
Jalalon, the sworn statement of Adela, and the criminal prosecution to conduct cross-examination on him and to and his daughter's sexual organs. He was finally able to
complaint signed by both Marilou and Adela. The defense, present any rebuttal evidence. The cross-examination of a penetrate her. Once inside her, appellant made push and pull
during its turn in the presentation of evidence, countered with witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the movements until he was through with her. Appellant
the testimony of the accused himself. It also called Adela witness is called.5 The purpose of cross-examination is to threatened to kill her if she would tell anybody about the
Fabre back to the witness stand. test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness sexual encounter. The young girl's mother, Adela Fabre,
made on direct examination.6 The party against whom the arrived home about five o'clock that afternoon but,
witness testifies may deem any further examination remembering her father's threats, she kept mum about her
The trial court gave credence to the evidence given by the ordeal.
unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
prosecution, particularly to the narration of the young
theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what
complainant, expressing a quote from an observation once
would be believed is the perception of the court thereon.
made by this Tribunal in one of its decision that "even when The credibility of Marilou would not be all that difficult to
Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the
consumed with revenge, it (would) take a certain amount of discern from her narration that, as so described by the
testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a prosecution, "was full of graphic details which a young
he is not cross-examined by the other party.
story which (could) put her own father for the rest of his provincial girl could not possibly have concocted and which
remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her could only have come from someone who must have
family to a lifetime of shame." 2 Convinced that the accused The alibi of appellant itself would not appear to be deserving personally experienced a brutal rape assault." She testified:
committed the crime of rape on his own daughter, the trial of serious consideration. His account that at the time of the
judge disposed of the case thusly: alleged rape he was working at a coconut plantation, just "PROS. ENRIQUEZ:
about one kilometer away from the place of the crime, hardly
would amount to much. Nor would the testimony of Adela
"Q Now, Miss Marilou, can you recall where "Q While you were in your house after having "Q Now, did your father find it easy to insert
were you on April 26, 1995 at about 4:00 o'clock in been dragged by your father, what happened if his penis to your vagina?
the afternoon? any?
"A It [took] a long time, sir.
"A Yes, sir. "A He closed our house and he removed my
panty, sir.
"Q And did he use anything to facilitate the
"Q Where were you that time? insertion of his penis to your vagina?
"Q And after removing your panty, what did
your father do next?
"A In our house, sir. "A Yes, sir.

"A He removed his pants and he let me hold


"Q What were you doing in your house? "Q What was that?
his penis, sir.

"A I was cleaning our yard, sir. "A He used coconut oil in his penis and also
"Q And what did you do next after holding his
in my vagina so that his penis can easily insert my
penis?
vagina, sir.
"Q How far is your yard where you were
doing some works from your house?
"A I was crying, sir.
"Q Now, while his penis was in your vagina,
can you tell this Honorable Court if he did anything
"A (Witness pointing a distance of around 2 to
"Q While you were crying what did your father also on top of you and while his penis was inside
3 meters.)
do? your vagina?

"Q Now, while you were doing your work in


"A He was touching my breast and my "A None, sir.
your yard, can you recall if there was an incident
vagina, sir.
that occurred?
"Q Did he make any movement?
"Q After that what did he do next?
"A Yes, sir.
"A Yes, sir.
"A He let me lie down, sir.
"Q What was that incident that occurred?
"Q What was that movement?
"Q And while lying down, what did your father
"A While I was gathering a palm oil my father
do?
arrived and suddenly dragged me to our house, "A He made a push and pull movement on
sir. my body, sir.
"A He mounted me and he inserted his penis,
to my vagina, sir.
"COURT: "Q Now, while your father was doing it to you
where was your mother that time?
"Q And what did you feel while your father
"Q Where is your house located?
was inserting his penis to your vagina?
"A She was in Purok 4, Manat, Trento,
Agusan del Sur, sir.
"A At Purok 4, Manat, Trento, Agusan del Sur,
"A Very painful, sir.
Your Honor.
"Q And did you report this incident to your
"Q And what did you do while your father was mother?
"PROS. ENRIQUEZ:
inserting his penis to your vagina?
"A Not yet sir because he told me not to tell
"Q What did you do when your father
"A I was crying, sir. anybody.
dragged you to your house?

"Q And while you were crying what did your "Q So when did you had a chance to tell your
"A Because I was dragged by my father to
father do if any? mother about this incident?
our house I just went with him, sir.

"A He told me not to tell anybody because if I "A On May 1, 1995, sir.
will do it he will kill me, sir.
"Q And what did your mother do after you fact of minority of the victim, although specifically averred in
reported to her this incident? the information, has not been equally shown in evidence.
These qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority
are twin requirements that should be both alleged in the
"A She reported [the matter] to the Kagawad,
information and established beyond reasonable doubt during
sir."9
trial in order to sustain an imposition of the death
penalty.14 Neither an obvious minority of the victim nor the
It has been stressed quite often enough that the testimony of failure of the defense to contest her real age always excuse
a rape victim, who is young and still immature, deserves faith the prosecution from the desired proof required by
and credence10 for it simply would be unnatural for a young law.15 Judicial notice of the issue of age without the requisite
and innocent girl to invent a story of defloration, allow an hearing conducted under Section 3, Rule 129, of the Rules
examination of her private parts and thereafter subject of Court, would not be considered sufficient compliance with
herself and her family to the trauma of a public trial unless the law. The birth certificate of the victim or, in lieu thereof,
she indeed has spoken the truth.11 Most especially, a any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate,
daughter would not accuse her own father of such a serious school records and documents of similar nature, or credible
offense or allow herself to be perverted if she were not truly testimonial evidence, that can help establish the age of the
motivated by a desire to seek a just retribution for a violation victim should be presented.16 While the declaration of a
brazenly committed against her.12 victim as to her age, being an exception to the hearsay
proscription, would be admissible under the rule on pedigree,
the question on the relative weight that may be accorded to it
Confirming Marilou's story was the medical report and is a totally different matter.17
testimony of Dr. Reinerio Jalalon, the government physician
stationed at the Bunawan District Hospital in Agusan del Sur,
who examined Marilou. Dr. Jalalon made these findings; viz: In the case at bar, the complainant claimed that she was 13
years old at the time of the incident. 18 Her mother stated,
however, that she was 14.19 The birth certificate of the victim,
"Abrasion at (L) labia minora at 3:00 o'clock at least already in her teens, was not presented to ascertain
position. her true age on the bare allegation that the document was
lost when their house burned down.20 No other document
"Vaginal smear (-) negative for spermatozoa."13 that could somehow help establish the real age of the victim
was submitted.
The doctor concluded that it was possible that genital
penetration on the victim did occur and that a penis could The Court, in sum, upholds the decision of the trial court
have caused the abrasion on the victim's labia minora. convicting Leonardo Fabre of the crime of rape but must
reduce, on account of insufficiency of proof on the qualifying
circumstance of minority of the victim, the penalty of death
There is merit, however, in the plea of the defense, to reclusion perpetua. With respect to the civil liability, the
seconded by the prosecution, that the penalty of death Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity but,
imposed by the trial court should be reduced to the penalty in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence, must additionally
of reclusion perpetua. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, order the payment of P50,000.00 moral damages21 and
as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, P20,000.00 exemplary damages.22
provides:

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo finding


"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the LEONARDO FABRE guilty of rape is AFFIRMED but the
crime of rape is committed with any of the sentence of death therein imposed should be, as it is hereby
following attendant circumstances: so, reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of P50,000.00
civil liability in favor of victim, Marilou Fabre, is sustained;
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) however, appellant is further ordered to pay to the victim the
years of age and the offender is a amounts of P50,000.00 moral damages and P20,000.00
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, exemplary damages.
relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the SO ORDERED.
common-law-spouse of the parent of the
victim."

While the father-daughter relationship between appellant and


private complainant has been sufficiently established, the
2. The accused was at the time of the incident in direction of the noise, she saw a confused Mayia
the vicinity thereof; approaching her with blood dripping from her private parts
and thighs. When Giron asked Mayia what happened, the
latter shouted "ni-rape ako, ni-rape ako" (p. 4, TSN, January
3. The victim in this case, Mayia P. Ponseca, was
4, 1999). Giron then summoned her husband and other
born on 23 May 1990 as evidenced by her birth
companions to look for Mayia’s attacker but was unable to
certificate;
find him. Giron then proceeded to Hermie Ponseca and
Osias Ponseca, Mayia’s parents, to inform them of what
G.R. No. 142556 February 5, 2003
4. That after the incident, the child was subjected happened (p. 5, TSN, January 5, 1999; p. 2, TSN, January
to a medico-legal examination to which a medico- 19, 1999).
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, legal certificate was issued by Dr. Editha Divino.
vs. When her parents asked Mayia if she knew her assailant, the
JESUS PEREZ y SEBUNGA, accused-appellant.
The prosecution marked in evidence the birth certificate of latter answered the name "Johnny." (id.) The couple brought
the victim Mayia O. Ponseca as Exhibit ‘A’, and the medico- their daughter to the President Ramon Magsaysay Memorial
DECISION legal certificate issued by Dr. Editha Divino as Exhibit ‘B’."6 Hospital for medical examination (p. 2, TSN, February 24,
1999). She was examined by Dra. Editha Dela Cruz Divino,
who issued a medico-legal certificate dated January 23,
PER CURIAM: Thereafter, trial ensued. The prosecution presented the 1997 stating the following:
following witnesses: the victim, Mayia Ponseca; the victim’s
mother, Hermie Ponseca; the victim’s father, Osias Ponseca;
For automatic review is the Decision1 dated October 26, a. Bleeding of genitalia coming from median laceration at the
Virginia Espejo Giron; and Dr. Editha dela Cruz Divino. On
1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch vaginal floor around four (4) centimeters in size. Possible
the other hand, the defense presented appellant and his
69, in Criminal Case No. RTC-2116-I, finding appellant Jesus cause, a fall and then hitting a sharp object and also an
employer, Bartolome Tolentino.
S. Perez ("appellant" for brevity), guilty of raping Mayia P. alleged sexual assault (p. 4, TSN, February 24, 1999).
Ponseca ("Mayia" for brevity) and imposing on appellant the
death penalty. The Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG" for brevity)
summarized the prosecution’s version of the incident in the b. Genitalia had hymenal lacerations at 3, 6, 9 and 12 o’clock
appellee’s brief, to wit: positions.
On January 22, 1997, the Second Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor2 of Zambales filed an Information3 charging
appellant with the crime of rape "penalized under Article 335 "On January 17, 1997, about noontime, in Sitio Baco, (pp. 4-6 id.)
of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Article Barangay Macarang, Palauig, Zambales, six-year old Mayia
III of Republic Act No. 7610," committed as follows: Ponseca was walking along Sulok on her way to her house
Because of the extent of the damage on her genitals, Mayia
in Sitio Camiling when appellant Jesus Sebunga Perez
undertook an IV sedation operation to repair her lacerations
approached her (pp. 7-8, TSN, December 15, 1998).
"That on or about the 17th day of January, 1997 at 12:00 (p. 6, id.) During her confinement at the hospital, the
Appellant introduced himself as "Johnny" and immediately
noon at Sitio Baco, Brgy. Macarang, in the Municipality of Ponseca couple reported the incident to the Palauig PNP
afterwards, strangled her neck and boxed her abdomen (p.
Palauig, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the Police Station and recounted their daughter’s narration
10, TSN, December 15, 1998). Still in shock, Mayia fell down
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with including the name of the culprit as "Johnny" who, according
(id.). At that point, a dog arrived and barked at them.
lewd design and by means of coercion, inducement and to their neighbors, was a worker at the fishpond of Bartolome
other consideration, did then and there, wilfully (sic), Tolentino (pp. 11-12, TSN, January 5, 1999). Police
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Appellant then proceeded to lower his black denim pants operatives then proceeded to the said fishpond and arrested
Mayia P. Ponseca, a minor of 6 years old, without her while simultaneously removing Mayia’s panty. He then appellant. After her discharge from the hospital, Mayia
consent and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of inserted his penis inside Mayia’s vagina (p. 11, id.). Mayia learned that appellant was already apprehended (pp. 3-8,
the latter." felt excruciating pain in her private parts (sic) but was not TSN, January 5, 1999). In the police station, she was able to
able to repel her aggressor whose strength and weight totally positively identify the appellant as the person who sexually
engulfed her. Her only recourse was to cry while her young assaulted her (p. 18, TSN, December 15, 1998)."7
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel de body was being ravished (p. 13, id.).
officio Atty. Genaro N. Montefalcon, pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged.4 Subsequently, the trial court allowed the Appellant denied raping Mayia. Appellant testified that on the
withdrawal of Atty. Montefalcon as counsel for health After satisfying his beastly desires, appellant raised his pants date of the alleged rape incident, he was working at a
reasons. The trial court appointed Atty. Roberto Blanco as and ran away (p. 14, id.). Notwithstanding that her vagina fishpond at Macarang, Zambales. He heard of the rape of a
appellant’s counsel de oficio.5 was bleeding profusely and her dress now covered with her young girl from his manager, Bartolome Tolentino ("Tolentino"
own blood, Mayia managed to stand up and seek help. She for brevity).8 Appellant further testified that on January 25,
ran to the house of Virginia Giron, which was only fifty (50) 1997, policemen went to the fishpond where he worked. The
At the pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated on policemen arrested appellant and brought him to the police
meters away from the scene of the crime. In fact, Giron was
the following facts: station at Palauig. Later, the policemen took him to the
outside when she heard her dog barking (apparently, it was
the same dog barking at appellant while he was municipal jail of Palauig.
"1. The identity of the accused; consummating his lust on Mayia, pp. 2-3, TSN, January 12,
1999; p. 11, TSN, December 15, 1998). Looking at the
On cross-examination, appellant testified that his nickname As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the Q Were there persons around in the place when
is not "Johnny" but "Jessie."9 He testified that on January 17, rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of Johnny strangled you?
1997, at around 12 o’clock noon, he left the fishpond and tender years13 as it is usually difficult for such child to state
walked home to Barangay Alwa which was about thirty facts without prompting or suggestion.14 Leading questions
A None, ma’m.
meters from the fishpond.10 are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips. 15 In
the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing
leading questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and Q So, what did he do then after he strangled you?
The defense formally offered the testimony of witness
unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not
Tolentino to prove that appellant was employed as caretaker
uncertain.16 As explained in People v. Rodito Dagamos:17
of Tolentino’s fishpond for almost two years before the A He boxed me on my stomach, ma’m.
alleged rape incident. Appellant was purportedly of good
moral character while employed as a fishpond caretaker. The "The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the
Q When he boxed you on your stomach, what
prosecution admitted the offer of testimony. Hence, the trial courts in exercising control over the questioning of a child
happened to you?
court dispensed with the testimony of Tolentino in open witness. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on
court.11 Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on
December 15, 2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the A I was shocked, ma’m.
ascertainment of the truth, (2) to ensure that questions are
After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment12 on October
stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the
26, 1999, the dispositive portion of which reads: Q Did you fall down?
child, (3) to protect children from harassment or undue
embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time. Leading
"WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, accused Jesus Perez questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed A Before that, I was already lying down, so when
y Sabung (SIC) is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt if the same will further the interests of justice." he boxed me, I was shocked.
of the crime of Statutore Rape, defined and penalized under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code with the qualifying
The Court has repeatedly stated that it is highly Q You said that you were already lying down. Who
circumstance that the victim was only 6 years old at the time
inconceivable for a child of tender age, inexperienced in the made you lie down?
of the commission of the offense, in relation to Section 5 (b),
ways of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration,
Article III, Republic Act 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the
undergo a medical examination of her private part, subject
penalty of DEATH. Jesus Perez is directed to pay to the A The person, ma’m.
herself to public trial, and tarnish her family’s honor and
private complainant the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand
reputation, unless she was motivated by a strong desire to
Pesos (P75,000.00) as and by way of civil indemnity and
seek justice for the wrong committed against her.18 Q Why were you shocked, Mayia?
Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) as and by way of moral
damages."
Mayia recounted her harrowing experience, thus: A Because he strangled me and boxed me.
Hence, this automatic review.
"Q What time was this when Johnny introduced Q After he boxed you on your abdomen, what
himself to you? happened? What else did he do to you?
In his brief, appellant raises the following lone assignment of
error:
A I do not recall, ma’m. A There was a dog that arrived in the place and it
"THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT barked at us. Then Johnny moved in a hurry by
THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN Q Was it in the morning, noontime or in the penetrating my private part and after he dressing
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT." afternoon or in the evening? (SIC) me, he ran away.

Appellant contends that his identification in open court by A Noontime, ma’m. Q You said that Johnny penetrated your private
Mayia was highly irregular.l^vvphi1.net Appellant points out part. With what instrument did he use in
that the prosecutor had already identified him as the man penetrating your private part?
Q So, when Johnny said, ‘Ako si Johnny,’ what did
wearing an orange t-shirt when the prosecutor asked Mayia
you do?
to identify her alleged rapist. Appellant stresses that when A His penis, ma’m.
Mayia identified him in open court, she referred to him as a
man named "Johnny" and did not give any description or any A None, ma’m.
identifying mark. Moreover, appellant claims he was alone in Q What was he wearing at that time?
the cell when Mayia identified him after the police arrested
Q After that when Johnny said, ‘Ako si Johnny’,
him. Appellant bewails that the identification was not done A A black denim, ma’m.
what happened?
with the usual police line-up.

A He strangled (sinakal) me. Q When he used his penis in entering your private
Appellant’s contention is untenable. part, did he remove his pants?
A No, ma’m. A At Sulok, ma’m. the sexual assault leaves no doubt as to the correctness of
her identification for a man and woman cannot be physically
closer to each other than during the sexual act.24 Thus, even
Q What did he do with his pants? Q Sulok is a place?
if Mayia did not give the identifying marks of appellant, her
positive identification of appellant sufficed to establish clearly
A He brought out his penis, ma’m. A Yes, ma’m. the identity of her sexual assailant.

Q You mean to say Mayia, he lowered his pants? Q Do you have any companion when this man Appellant’s claim that the police improperly suggested to
introduced himself to you? Mayia to identify appellant is without basis. True, Mayia did
not identify appellant in a police line-up when Mayia
A Yes, ma’m. identified appellant in his cell. However, appellant, in his
A None, ma’m. testimony admitted that he had two other companions in his
Q What about you, were you wearing any panty? cell.25 Moreover, the Court has held that there is no law
Q How did he introduce himself to you? requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper
identification. Even without a police line-up, there could still
A Yes, ma’m. be a proper identification as long as the police did not
A The man introduced himself to me by saying, suggest such identification to the witnesses. 26 The records
‘Kilala mo ba ako? Hindi po. Ako si Johnny.’"20 are bereft of any indication that the police suggested to
Q What was your clothes at that time?
Mayia to identify appellant as the rapist.
The trial court further asked Mayia:
A A dress, ma’m.
Mayia’s identification in open court of appellant as her rapist
"Q You were talking of a certain Johnny. s this dispels any doubt as to the proper identification of appellant.
Q When his penis entered your vagina Mayia, did Mayia positively identified and pointed to appellant as her
Johnny in court now?
he remove your panty? rapist. We are satisfied that her testimony, by itself, is
sufficient identification of her rapist. As held in People v.
A Yes, sir. Marquez:27
A Yes, ma’m."19

Q Can you point to him? "xxx. Indeed, the revelation of an innocent child whose
The identity of appellant as the rapist has been
established by the clear, convincing and chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness
straightforward testimony of Mayia. During the A Yes, sir. of complainant to face police investigation and to undergo
trial, she testified as follows: the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent
testimony of the truth of her complaint. Stated differently, it is
Q Point to him. most improbable for a five-year old girl of tender years, so
"Q Mayia, there is a man sitting wearing orange t- innocent and so guileless as the herein offended party, to
shirt, do you know this man? brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man if it
A (Witness pointing to the person sitting at the
accused bench and when asked of his name were not true."
A Yes, ma’m. answered Jesus Perez)
In his Reply Brief, appellant contends that even assuming
Q Do you know his name? Q Is this Johnny whom you point to the person that the guilt of appellant has been proven beyond
whom you saw in that ‘Sulok?’ reasonable doubt, the trial court erred in imposing the death
penalty. Appellant maintains that the death penalty cannot be
A Yes, ma’m. imposed on him for failure of the prosecution to prove
A Yes, sir." 21 Mayia’s age by independent evidence. Appellant points out
Q What is his name? that while Mayia’s birth certificate was duly marked during
Mayia’s simple, positive and straightforward recounting on the pre-trial, it was not presented and identified during the
the witness stand of her harrowing experience lends trial. Appellant asserts that Mayia’s minority must not only be
A Johnny, ma’m. specifically alleged in the Information but must also be
credence to her accusation. Her tender age belies any
allegation that her accusation was a mere invention impelled established beyond reasonable doubt during the
Q Why do you know him? by some ill-motive. As the Court has stressed in numerous trial.1awphi1.nét
cases, when a woman or a child victim says that she has
been raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to show Appellant’s argument deserves scant consideration.
A Because he introduced himself to me. that rape was indeed committed.22

Q Where did he introduced himself to you? At the pre-trial, the parties mutually worked out a satisfactory
Mayia had a clear sight of appellant’s face since the rape disposition of the criminal case. Appellant, assisted by
occurred at "noontime."23 Her proximity to appellant during
counsel, signed a Pre-Trial Agreement28 which, as If rape is qualified by any of the circumstances 37 warranting
incorporated in the Pre-Trial Order, stated that: the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity for
actual or compensatory damages is mandatory.38 Following
prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity is fixed at
"x x x.
P75,000.00. In addition, moral damages of P50,000.00
should also be awarded to the rape victim without need for
3. The victim in this case, Mayia P. Ponseca was born on pleading or proving it.39
23 May 1990 as evidenced by her birth certificate;
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 26, 1999 of the
x x x." (Emphasis supplied) Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69, in Criminal
Case No. RTC-2116-I, finding appellant Jesus S. Perez guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape,
During the pre-trial, the prosecution marked in evidence sentencing him to suffer the death penalty,40 and ordering
Mayia’s birth certificate as Exhibit "A". 29 The prosecution him to pay the victim Mayia P. Ponseca the amount of
submitted its Offer of Evidence30 which included Exhibit "A", a P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
certified true copy of Mayia’s birth certificate. The trial court damages, is AFFIRMED in toto.
admitted Exhibit "A"31 without any objection from the defense.

In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as


The purpose of pre-trial is to consider the following: (a) plea amended by Section 25 of the Republic Act No. 7659, upon
bargaining; (b) stipulation of facts; (c) marking for the finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be
identification of evidence of the parties; (d) waiver of forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President of the
objections to admissibility of evidence; (e) modification of the Philippines for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes
lawful defenses; and (f) such matters as will promote a fair
and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the SO ORDERED.
case.32 Facts stipulated and evidence admitted during pre-
trial bind the parties. Section 4, Rule 118 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure33 provides:

"SEC. 4. Pre-trial order. - After the pre-trial conference, the


court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts
stipulated, and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the
parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of, and control
the course of the action during the trial, unless modified by
the court to prevent manifest injustice." (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, Mayia herself testified in open court as to her age.


During the trial on December 15, 1998, which was about
twenty-three (23) months after the rape incident occurred on
January 17, 1997, Mayia testified on cross-examination that
she was "8 years old last May 23."34 Thus, by deduction,
since Mayia was born on May 23, 1990 as shown in her birth
certificate, she was about six (6) years and seven (7) months
old on January 17, 1997, the day the crime took place. We
rule that the prosecution has indisputably proven that Mayia
was below seven years old at the time appellant raped
her.1a\^/phi1.net

Finally, the trial court was correct in imposing the death


penalty on appellant. Under Article 33535 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659,36 the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed against a child below seven (7) years old.
Mayia was six (6) years and seven (7) months old when
appellant raped her.
On July 8, 1996, between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Levy Avila, the boundary in Sto. Domingo where they put up a
a teacher, was in his house doing some repairs. He noticed checkpoint. The police officers inspected every vehicle that
Jaime, Jr. and Ronald talking by the roadside near the gate passed by. At around 12:45 a.m., SPO4 Javier halted a
of his (Levy’s) house. Levy overheard the two planning to go passenger jeepney. On board were Jaime, Sr. and his two
to Diosdado’s house. Jaime, Jr. and Ronald even told Levy: sons, Jaime Jr. and Ronald, each of whom carried a bag
"Ayaw namin kasing inaasar." Suspecting that the two were containing their clothes. The policemen brought the
intending to harm Diosdado, Levy urged them to amicably Castillanos to the police station.16 The bags of Jaime, Jr. and
settle their differences with Diosdado. Ronald were turned over to the police investigators. The
G.R. No. 139412 April 2, 2003 three were placed under arrest for the killing of Diosdado.
The policemen submitted their investigation report.17
At around 8:00 p.m., Luz and Diosdado were about to retire
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, for the night. Their children were already fast asleep.
vs. Diosdado was tired after a day’s work of spraying chemicals In the meantime, at 7:00 a.m., Dr. Evangeline Consolacion,
JAIME CASTILLANO, SR. alias "Talino," RONALD at the rice field. He reclined on a bamboo bench near the the Municipal Health Officer of Bula, conducted an autopsy
CASTILLANO alias "Nono" and JAIME CASTILLANO, JR. main door of their house. A kerosene lamp lighted the house. on the cadaver of Diosdado. Her autopsy report revealed the
alias "Junjun," accused, Suddenly, Luz heard voices near their house. She saw following findings:
RONALD CASTILLANO alias "Nono" and JAIME Jaime, Sr. holding a flashlight and his two sons, Jaime Jr.
CASTILLANO, JR. alias "Junjun," appellants. and Ronald, on their way to the house. Luz immediately
External Findings
alerted her husband and told him that the Castillanos were in
CALLEJO, SR., J.: their yard. However, Diosdado was nonchalant and simply
told Luz not to mind them. All of a sudden, Jaime, Sr. fired 1. Incise Wound 3 cm Superior pinna R
1
his gun at Diosdado’s house. Terrified, Luz hastily carried her ear
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial baby daughter Mary Jane, sought cover and hid near the
Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31, in Criminal Case rear door. She was about five meters away from her
No. P-2542, convicting appellants Ronald Castillano alias 2. Incise woud (sic) 10 cm. from nasal
husband when the Castillanos barged inside their house and
"Nono" and Jaime Castillano, Jr. of murder, meting on each bridge extending to mandible R
ganged up on Diosdado. Jaime, Jr. and Ronald, armed with
of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering them bladed weapons, took turns in stabbing Diosdado. Ronald
to pay, jointly and severally, damages to the heirs of the stabbed Diosdado on the right side of his breast, right thigh 3. Stab wound 2 cm.x 5 cm. Epigastrium
victim Diosdado Volante. and on the back. He also struck him with a one-meter long R
pipe. Not satisfied, Jaime, Sr. fired his gun hitting the right
The Evidence or the Prosecution thigh of Diosdado. Luz was so shocked by the sudden turn of
events. To silence her one year old baby, she breastfed her. 4. Stab wound 2 cm.x 4 cm. Epigastrium
As soon as she could, Luz fled to the rice paddies where she L
Diosdado Volante, who eked out a living as a farmer, his wife hid for a time. The Castillanos fled on board a jeep parked in
Luz,2 and their four children lived in their farmland located in the NIA road about 200 meters from the house of Diosdado. 5. Stab wound 2.5 cm. Middle third Arm
the outskirt of Sitio Danawan, Barangay Sagrada, Bula, When Luz returned to their house, she saw her husband R
Camarines Sur. sprawled on the ground in a pool of his own blood.
Diosdado, at the point of death, asked her for help. Not
knowing what to do, Luz lost no time and ran to the house of 6. Stab wound 2cm x 5 cm. posterior
About 200 meters away from Diosdado’s farmland was the
their neighbor Celedonio Espiritu for help. Celedonio rushed Back.
farmhouse of Jaime Castillano, Sr.3 He tasked his son, Jaime
Castillano, Jr., to take care of the farmhouse and allowed to the Bula Police Station and reported the incident.
him to reside there.4 Jaime, Sr., his wife Concepcion, their 7. Amputating middle third finger L
son Ronald (Nono) Castillano and other children lived at their A team composed of SPO4 Jaime Javier, SPO3 Jaime
family residence in Sagrada, Bula, Camarines Sur, Bellano and SPO3 Nilo Fornillos,8 the duty investigator,9went 8. Hacked wound posterior ankle L
approximately three kilometers away from their farmhouse in to the crime scene10 to conduct an on-the-spot investigation.
Sitio Danawan.5 Photographs were taken of the cadaver. 11 SPO3 Fornillo
drew rough sketch12 of the scene. The policemen saw a bolo 9. Gunshot wound POE 2 x 2cm. with
at the place where Diosdado was sprawled near the door of contusion collar medial aspect middle
Sometime in the early part of June 1996,6 Jaime, Sr. fired his
their house. A scabbard of a bolo was found a meter away third R thigh
gun indiscriminately. Afraid that a stray bullet might hit any
member of his family, Diosdado accosted Jaime, Sr. and from the house of Diosdado. 13 The policemen also found a
asked him to desist from firing his gun indiscriminately. bullet hole on the wall of the house.14 Thereafter, the cadaver No point of exit noted
Jaime, Sr. resented the intrusion. He remonstrated that was placed on a hamak[hammock] brought to the police
neighbors did not even complain about him firing his gun. A station. The police investigators turned over the scabbard
and bolo to the desk officer of the police station.15 Internal Findings:
heated altercation ensued. Jaime, Sr. then fired his gun
towards the house of Diosdado. The incident germinated
deep animosity between the two and their respective From the police station, SPO4 Javier, SPO3 Bellano and Fracture femur with Foreign body bullet
families.7 Jaime, Sr. always carried a bolo whenever he Sgt. Rogelio Palacio boarded their mobile police car and set lodge in middle third femur with
passed by the house of Diosdado. out a manhunt for the malefactors. They proceeded towards hematoma about about 100 cc R thigh
Cause of Death; Hypovolemia Upon their arraignment28 on August 29, 1996, accused Jaime Jose Del Socorro corroborated the testimony of Ronald. He
secondary to Multiple Stab Wound18 Sr., Jaime, Jr and Ronald, duly assisted by counsel de parte, testified that on July 8, 1996, at about 5:00 p.m. he was on
Atty. Avelino Sales Jr., pleaded not guilty to the offense his way home when he met Diosdado whom he noticed to be
charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. inebriated and unruly Diosdado was throwing dried mud at
The doctor recovered a slug from the right thigh of Diosdado.
the farmhouse of the Castillanos and challenging the
She later signed the victim’s post-mortem certificate of
occupants of the farmhouse to a fight. He advised Diosdado
death.19 Senior Inspector Edgardo B. Sambo, Chief of Police Luz testified that when Diosdado was still alive, he had an
to stop what he was doing and warned him that he was only
of Bula Police Station, filed with the Municipal Trial Court of annual income of over P65,000. She spent P18,000 for the
inviting trouble. Diosdado told him to mind his own business
Bula, Camarines Sur, a criminal complaint 20 for murder funeral services,29 P300 for religious services,30 P9,111 for
and not to intervene. Jose thereafter left Diosdado and went,
against the Castillano brothers.21 Judge Francisco O. food and other expenses31 during her husband’s wake and
home.34 When Jose arrived home, Dominador Briña was
Tolentino conducted the preliminary examination and funeral. She suffered sleepless nights and mental anguish
waiting for him. He and Dominador talked business for a
thereafter issued an order of arrest against the for his sudden death.
while and subsequently had dinner. After some time, Jaime,
Castillanos.22 No bail was recommended for their provisional
Jr. and Ronald arrived at Jose’s house.
release. On July 9, 1996, Luz gave a sworn statement to the
The Defenses and Evidence of the Accused
police investigators.23
Concepcion Castillano testified that on July 8, 1996 at
Ronald admitted when he testified that he killed Diosdado around 5:00 a.m., her son Jaime, Jr. arrived home and told
On July 10, 1996, the accused were transferred to the
but insisted that he did so in self-defense and in defense of her that Diosdado threw stones at their farmhouse and
Tinangis Penal Farm. Senior Inspector Sambo requested the
his brother Jaime, Jr. He asserted that his father Jaime, Sr. challenged everybody to a fight. She felt nervous and
PNP-CLRU5 Provincial Unit to conduct a paraffin test on the
and brother Jaime, Jr. had nothing to do with Diosdado’s reported the incident to the police and caused the same to
Castillanos.24
death. Ronald alleged that on September 8, 1996, at about be entered in the police blotter.35 Thereafter, she went home
7:30 p.m., he was driving a passenger jeepney on his way to and told her sons Jaime, Jr. and Ronald to immediately fetch
On July 12, 1997, Major Lorlie Arroyo, the Head Forensic the poblacion of Bula. Jaime, Jr. flagged down the jeepney. Gilda. She, likewise, instructed her sons to first drop by the
Chemist of PNP-Region 5, conducted the paraffin test on the He boarded the jeepney and told Ronald that he was house of Jose so that the latter could accompany them to the
Castillanos. Ronald was found positive for gunpowder instructed by their mother to go to the house of Jose del farmhouse.
residue.25 Jaime, Sr. and Jaime, Jr. were found negative for Socorro to ask the latter to accompany them to their
gunpowder residue. farmhouse in order to fetch Gilda Albes. Ronald was armed
Jaime, Sr. vehemently denied any participation in the killing
with a .38 paltik gun, while Jaime, Jr. was armed with a bolo
of Diosdado. He claimed that at the time of the alleged
sheathed in a scabbard. They fetched Jose and then Ronald
The MTC issued a subpoena requiring the accused to submit incident, he was at their house in Sagrada, bedridden due to
parked the jeepney at the NIA road. Jaime, Jr., who was
their counter-affidavits from notice thereof. However, the his debilitating diabetes. He narrated to the trial court his
holding a flashlight, walked along the footpath on top of
accused failed to submit any counter-affidavit.26 medical history and his confinement at the Mandaluyong
a pilapil (a narrow earthen barrier between two rice fields).
Medical Center sometime in 1994.36 He presented
Ronald and Jose walked behind Jaime, Jr. As they passed
documents and receipts showing that he had been and is still
On August 2, 1996, an Information for murder was filed by the house of Diosdado, a man suddenly shouted: "you
under medication.37 He declared that upon learning from his
against Jaime, Sr., Ronald and Jaime Jr. with the Regional shit, I have await (sic) for you for a while, why just now."
son Ronald that the latter killed Diosdado, he advised his
Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31. The accusatory Surprised, Jaime, Jr. forthwith focused his flashlight towards
sons to look for a lawyer for legal representation. He told the
portion of the Information reads: the man who shouted. He was aghast when he saw
trial court that at around 11:30 p.m., he and his two sons had
Diosdado armed with a bolo running towards them and about
decided to go to Andangnan in order to meet a cousin of his
to attack them with his bolo. Ronald shoved Jaime, Jr. who
That on or about the 8th day of July 1996 at about who knew of a lawyer named Atty. Rotor. As they traversed
fell on the muddy rice paddies below the pilapil. Ronald
8:00 o’clock in the evening at Barangay Sagrada, the road to Andangan, they were stopped by some
forthwith shot Diosdado. Diosdado took a step but fell on a
Municipality of Bula, Province of Camarines Sur, policemen at a checkpoint and were invited to the police
kneeling position. Diosdado brandished his bolo. Ronald
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this station where they were investigated and eventually
shot Diosdado once more but his gun misfired. To defend
Honorable Court, the above-named accused incarcerated.38
himself, Ronald took Jaime, Jr.’s bolo and hacked Diosdado
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping to death.32 Ronald then fled from the scene and ran to the
one another with intent to kill with treachery and jeepney at the NIA road. Jaime, Jr. and Jose boarded the Gilda Abes, the last witness for the defense, affirmed that
evident premeditation armed with a handgun, jeep and left the scene. Ronald threw the bolo along the way. she was the girlfriend of Jaime, Jr. She told the trial court
bladed weapon and piece of wood did then and He threw his gun into a rice farm in Danawan. that on July 8, 1996 she was at the farmhouse of the
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, Castillanos. She corroborated the testimony of Jose that
assault and shot and stab one DIOSDADO Diosdado was combative and drunk. According to Gilda,
VOLANTE y LOZANO inflicting upon the latter Jaime, Jr. corroborated the testimony of his brother. He,
Jaime, Jr. left the farmhouse before sundown to go to his
several mortal wounds on the different parts of his however, testified that he did not see his brother hack and kill
parent’s place at Sagrada. Jaime, Jr. never returned to the
body which caused his instantaneous death, to the Diosdado. He claimed that when Ronald got hold of his bolo,
farmhouse that night. Gilda learned of the incident the next
damage and prejudice of the heirs of said he ran away and proceeded to their jeepney which was then
morning when she went home.39
Diosdado Volante the amount of which to be parked at the roadside. Minutes later, Ronald followed. They
proven in Court. then hastily went home to Sagrada and told their father
Jaime, Sr. of the incident.33 The Verdict of the Trial Court
27
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
On December 22, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the Q You mentioned also a while ago that this
convicting Jaime, Jr. and Ronald of murder qualified by prosecution for by pleading self-defense, the accused gun that you said is a "paltik" and you throw it
evident premeditation and treachery. The trial court thereby admits having killed the victim and he can no longer away also, is it not?
exonerated Jaime, Sr. of the crime on reasonable doubt. The be exonerated of the crime charged if he fails to prove the
trial court gave no credence to Ronald’s claim that he acted confluence of the essential requisites for self-defense and
A Yes, Ma’am.
in self-defense. The decretal portion of the decision reads: defense of a relative.43

Q And that gun had been in your possession


WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Appellant Ronald failed to discharge his burden.
the whole day that you are driving up to the time
judgment is hereby rendered, finding the two (2)
you shot the victim, Diosdado Volante?
accused RONALD CASTILLANO and JAIME
First. After shooting and stabbing Diosdado, appellant
CASTILLANO, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Ronald fled from the situs criminis. Flight from the situs of
of the offense of MURDER and they are hereby A Yes, Ma’am.
the crime is a veritable badge of guilt and negates his plea of
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
self-defense.44
of RECLUSION PERPETUAwith all the accessory
Q Do you have license to possess that
penalties imposed thereby. Further, as civil liability,
firearm?
the said two (2) accused are hereby ordered to Second. Appellant Ronald threw away his paltik .38 gun and
pay the legal heirs of the late Diosdado L. Volante, the bolo he used in hacking Diosdado as he fled from the
through his widow Luz R. Volante, the total sum of scene of the crime instead of surrendering the same to the A None, Ma’am.46
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND police authorities. Appellant Ronald admitted that he had no
FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY ONE PESOS license for the gun:
(P177,421.00) Philippine Currency as actual and The failure of appellant Ronald to surrender the bolo and his
moral damages including death indemnity, with gun to the police authorities belies his claim of self-defense.
Q Where is that gun now that you use?
costs against both accused.
Third. Appellant Ronald failed to report the incident to the
A I do not know, Your Honor, I think I was able police authorities even when they arrested him. Curiously, he
The accused Jaime Castillano, Sr. is hereby
to throw it away. failed to inform the police officers who arrested him that he
acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
acted in self-defense when he shot and stabbed the victim
The resounding silence of the appellant is
Q Where?
SO ORDERED.40 another indicium of the incredibility of his
defense.47 Moreover, the records show that the municipal
A At Danawan, Your Honor. trial court issued a subpoena on July 9, 1996 requiring
The accused, now appellants, interposed their appeal from
appellant Ronald to submit his counter-affidavit but he
the decision of the trial court contending that it committed
refused and/or failed to submit the same despite service on
reversible errors: Q Danawan, is that a lake?
him of the subpoena. It was only during the trial that
appellant Ronald, for the first time, invoked self-defense and
(a) in rejecting appellant Ronald’s plea of self-defense; and A No, Your Honor, it is a ricefarm. defense of a relative.
(b) in not acquitting appellant Jaime, Jr. of the crime charged
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
Q What kind of gun is this? Fourth. The cadaver of the victim was found inside his house
reasonable doubt.
when the police investigators arrived.48 This belies appellant
Ronald’s claim that he shot the victim in the rice paddies,
Anent the first issue, appellant Ronald posits that he A Paltik .38, Your Honor.45 near his house and that he (appellant Ronald) took the bolo
adduced proof that he acted in self-defense when he of appellant Jaime, Jr. and used it to stab the victim.
stabbed the victim. ATTY. BALLEBAR: Appellant Ronald failed to prove his claim that when the
police investigators arrived in the victim’s house, they carried
his (the victim’s) body from the rice paddies to the house.
The Court disagrees with appellant Ronald. The Court has Q By the way, where is that bolo that you The only evidence adduced by appellant Ronald was his
consistently held that like alibi, self-defense is inherently used in hacking and stabbing Diosdado Volante? testimony which is hearsay, and besides being hearsay, it is
weak because it is easy to fabricate. 41 In a case where self-
speculative and mere conjecture.
defense and defense of relatives is invoked by the accused,
the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove with clear A I do not know anymore because I was able
and convincing evidence the essential requisites of self- to throw it away also when I ran away. Fifth. Appellant Ronald hacked the victim no less than five
defense, namely (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the times. Two of the stab wounds sustained by the victim were
victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to Q Where is that place where you throw it? at his back and posterior portion of his left ankle. The
repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on number and nature of the wounds of the victim negate the
the part of the person defending himself. There can be no appellant’s claim that he shot the victim in self-defense. On
complete or incomplete self-defense or defense of relatives A It was by the NIA road. the contrary, they prove that appellant Ronald was
unless the accused proves unlawful aggression on the part determined to kill the victim.49
of the victim.42 The accused must rely on the strength of his
Appellant Jaime, Jr. avers that the prosecution failed to wounds sustained, he could have died instantly (p. The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General.
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime 8, Complainant’s Memorandum). Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his
charged. He asserts that the testimony of Luz Volante, the testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his
widow of Diosdado, was inconsistent with her testimony prior statements which are inconsistent with his present
7. It was bright inside our house with a kerosene
during the preliminary examination in the municipal trial court testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or the
and a bottle lamp (Tsn pp. 33-34, 2/17/97). Only
and her sworn statement before the police investigators as foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice
one kerosene lamp - bottle of gin with wick and
well as the testimonies of SPO1 Fornillos and SPO4 Jaime to the witness being cross-examined. The witness must be
light (Tsn p. 10, 4/1/97 - SPO1 Pornillos
Favier, and the physical evidence on record. The appellant given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent
catalogued said inconsistencies, thus: inconsistency between his two statements and state the
Surrounding house, dark, total darkness (Tsn circumstances under which they were made. 51 This Court
pp. 12-13, 4/1/97). held in People v. Escosura52 that the statements of a witness
1. He was lying on the bench inside just upon
prior to her present testimony cannot serve as basis for
entering. (Tsn p. 9, 2/17/97).
impeaching her credibility unless her attention was directed
8. Scene Photography by Jaime Jornales (Tsn, to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and she was given
p. 21, 2/17/97).
- I was lying down with my husband inside an opportunity to explain said inconsistencies. In a case
our house but we were still awake (9th Answer, where the cross-examiner tries to impeach the credibility and
Prel. Exam. MTC, 7/9/96). -do- by Mr. Lozano (Tsn., p. 12, 3/7/97). truthfulness of a witness via her testimony during a
preliminary examination, this Court outlined the procedure
in United States vs. Baluyot,53 thus:
2. JCS fired towards our house hitting the wall 9. SPO1 Nilo Pornillos learned of the incident at
(Tsn p. 11, 2/17/96). 8:00 o’clock of July 8, 1996 (page 5 of
Complainant’s Memorandum. ...For instance, if the attorney for the accused had
information that a certain witness, say Pedro
JCS fired twice (16th answer, Prel. Exam. Gonzales, had made and signed a sworn
MTC, 7/9/96). SPO4 Jaime Javier received report at 9:00 statement before the fiscal materially different from
o’clock P.M. of July 8, 1996 of Complainant’s that given in his testimony before the court, it was
Memorandum. incumbent upon the attorney when cross-
JCS kept on firing the gun pointing towards
the body of my husband (9th Answer, Sworn examining said witness to direct his attention to
Statement, PNP, 7/9/96). SPO4 Jaime Javier received report at 8:00 the discrepancy and to ask him if he did not make
P.M. (page 7 of Complainant’s Memorandum).50 such and such statement before the fiscal or if he
did not there make a statement different from that
JCS shot my husband three (3) times (Tsn p. delivered in court. If the witness admits the making
16, 2/17/97) On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts of such contradictory statement, the accused has
that the credibility of the testimony of Luz, the prosecution’s the benefit of the admission, while the witness has
principal witness, cannot be impeached via her testimony the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he
3. My husband was shot and hit on the right
during the preliminary examination before the municipal trial can. On the other hand, if the witness denies
thigh (Tsn p. 14, 2/17/97). He was hit on the left
court nor by her sworn statement given to the police making any such contradictory statement, the
lap (23rd Answer, Prel. Exam. MTC, 7/9/96). He
investigators for the reason that the transcripts and sworn accused has the right to prove that the witness did
was hit on his side (Tsn p. 43, 2/17/97).
statement were neither marked and offered in evidence by make such statement; and if the fiscal should
the appellants nor admitted in evidence by the trial court. refuse upon due notice to produce the document,
4. RC struck my husband with a 1-meter long Moreover, the appellants did not confront Luz with her secondary evidence of the contents thereof would
Pipe (Tsn p. 13, 2/17/97). RC & JCJ smashed my testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn be admissible. This process of cross-examining a
husband with a hard object (5th Answer, Sworn statement to the police investigators. Luz was not, therefore, witness upon the point of prior contradictory
Statement, 7/9/96). accorded a chance to explain the purported inconsistencies, statements is called in the practice of the American
as mandated by Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules courts "laying a predicate" for the introduction of
of Evidence which reads: contradictory statements. It is almost universally
RC smashed my husband (22nd Answer,
Prel. Exam. MTC, 7/9/96). accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon
How witness is impeached by evidence of cross-examination, evidence of contradictory
inconsistent statement. - Before a witness can be statements are not admissible to impeach a
5. He was not able to fight back (Tsn p. 43, witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a
impeached by evidence that he has made at other
2/17/97). He was standing and was trying to parry large extent in the discretion of the court.
times statements inconsistent with his present
the attack of the accused (26th Answer, Prel.
testimony, the statements must be related to him,
Exam. 7/9/96).
with the circumstances of the times and places In this case, the appellants never confronted Luz with her
and the persons present, and he must be asked testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn
6. When I went back to the house, he was still whether he made such statements, and if so, statement. She was not afforded any chance to explain any
alive (Tsn p. 19, 2/17/97). - LV "Yes," the victim allowed to explain them. If the statements be in discrepancies between her present testimony and her
could have died instantly (Tsn p. 35, 2/3/97) With writing they must be shown to the witness before testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn
any question is put to him concerning them. statement. The appellants did not even mark and offer in
evidence the said transcript and sworn statement for the incident was reported to the police authorities are A Jaime Castillano Jr. stabbed my husband
specific purpose of impeaching her credibility and her similarly irrelevant to the matters in issue. Of and also Ronal Castillano stabbed my husband.
present testimony. Unless so marked and offered in evidence consequence here is the fact that on the night the
and accepted by the trial court, said transcript and sworn crime was committed, it was reported to the
Q Now, was your husband hit by the stabbing
statement cannot be considered by the court.54 authorities who later effected the arrest of the
of Ronald Castillano, Jr. (sic)?
perpetrators thereof.55
On the purported inconsistencies or discrepancies
A Yes, sir.
catalogued by the appellants relating to the testimony of Luz The Court fully agrees with the foregoing ruminations of the
during the preliminary examination and her sworn statement, Office of the Solicitor General. The inconsistencies adverted
the Office of the Solicitor General posits that: to by the appellants pertained only to minor and collateral Q Will you tell us on what part of his body
matters and not to the elements of the crime charged; hence, was he hit?
they do not dilute the probative weight of the testimony. It

bears stressing that even the most truthful witness can make
A My husband was still struck by Ronald
mistakes but such innocent lapses do not necessarily affect
Castillano hitting him on his right side of his body
Sixth, Volante indeed testified that when she his credibility. The testimonies of witnesses must be
including on his right thigh and also on his back..
returned to their house from the ricefield, after the considered and calibrated in their entirety and not by their
three accused had left the premises, her husband truncated portions or isolated passages.56 And then again,
was still alive (TSN, February 17, 1997, p. 19) as minor contradictions among several witnesses of a particular ATTY. BALLEBAR:
he was still able to ask for her assistance (Ibid, p. incident and aspect thereof which do not relate to the
20). But it is not inconsistent with the expert gravamen of the crime charged are to be expected in view of
their differences in impressions, memory, vantage points and Q Now, you said Ronald Castillano struck
opinion of Dr. Consolacion that by the nature of the
other related factors.57 your husband, now with what instrument did he
wounds sustained by the victim, the latter could
use in strucking (sic) your husband?
have died thereof instantaneously (TSN, February
3, 1997, p. 35). It is clear that the said physician
Contrary to appellant Jaime, Jr.’s claim, the prosecution
was merely stating a possibility and not what ATTY. BERNALES:
adduced proof that he and appellant Ronald conspired to kill
happened in the instant case because in the first
and did kill Diosdado by their simultaneous acts of stabbing
place, she was not present at the scene right after
the victim. As narrated by Luz: We object, misleading, your Honor.
the incident.

ATTY. BALLEBAR: COURT:


Seventh, Volante was insistent in her testimony
that at the time of the commission of the subject
crime, it was bright inside their house because Q Now after Jaime Castillano Sr. fired at your Witness may answer.
they had a "kerosene lamp" and a "bottle lamp" house, what happened next if any?
both lighted up, one placed on the wall and the
other on the ceiling (Ibid, pp. 33, 52-53). While it WITNESS:
A They entered our house.
may appear contradictory to SPO1 Pornillos’
testimony that there was only a kerosene lamp at A A pipe.
the time, he could not have been expected to Q Now, when you say they to whom are you
notice all the things found inside the house, referring to?
including the "bottle lamp", because he might not ATTY. BALLEBAR:
have been familiar with its interiors. Or, he could
A Jaime Castillano Sr., Jaime Castillano, Jr.,
have focused his attention primarily on the body of Q Now, will you tell us more or less how long
and Ronald Castillano.
the fallen victim and the objects that may be used was that pipe that was used by Ronald Castillano?
later as evidence against the perpetrators of the
crime. Q Now, where did they enter?
A About one (1) meter, Maam.58

Eight, it is admitted that the testimonies of Volante A In the other door.


and SPO1 Pornillos as to who took pictures of the Luz was merely five meters away from where Diosado was
crime scene including the lifeless body of the attacked and stabbed by the appellants. Appellant Jaime, Jr.
victim are contradictory. But again, such Q Now at the time they entered your house even tried to cut the ankle of the victim:
contradiction, being only minor and irrelevant, was the door of your house closed or opened?
does not affect the credibility of their testimonies. ATTY. BALLEBAR:
A It was closed.
And ninth, the apparently inconsistent statements Q Now during this incident, how far were you
of the prosecution witnesses (SPO1 Pornillos and Q Now, after the accused entered your house from the accused and your husband?
SPO4 Javier) as to the exact time the subject what happened next, if any?
A From where I am sitting up to that window The Crime Committed by Appellants the information, as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the
which is about five (5) meters. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:
The trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder,
Q Now after the accused strucked (sic) and qualified by treachery, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint
shot your husband, what else happened if any? Code. The Court, however, does not agree with the trial or information shall state the designation of the
court’s finding that evident premeditation attended the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
commission of the crime. omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
A Jaime Castillano Jr. stabbed my husband
qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there
on his breast (Witness is pointing to her breast).
is no designation of the offense, reference shall be
Case law has it that the prosecution has the burden to prove
made to the section or subsection of the statute
beyond reasonable doubt qualifying circumstances in the
ATTY. BERNALES: punishing it.
commission of the crime. For evident premeditation to qualify
a crime, the prosecution must prove the confluence of the
We will move that the answer be striken off from essential requites thereof: (a) the time when the offender has The use by appellant Ronald of an unlicensed firearm to
the records because it is not responsive to the determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly shoot Diosdado on the thigh is not an aggravating
question. The question is after your husband has indicating that the offender has clung to his determination; circumstance because (1) there is no allegation in the
been stabbed strucked (sic) and shot. (c) an interval of time between the determination and the information that said appellant had no license to possess the
execution of the crime enough to allow him to reflect upon firearm. That appellant lacked the license to possess the
the consequences of his act.61There must be proof beyond firearm is an essential element of the crime and must be
COURT: cavil when and how the offender planned to kill the victim alleged in the information.65 Although the crime was
and that sufficient time had elapsed between the time he had committed before the new rule took effect on December 1,
Q Your are being asked what happened after decided to kill the victim and the actual killing of the victim, 2002, the rule should, however, be applied retroactively as it
the accused was already stabbed, strucked (sic) and that in the interim, the offender performed overt acts is favorable to the appellants.66
and shot, what happened next? positively and conclusively showing his determination to
commit the said crime.62In this case, the only evidence
The appellants are not entitled to the mitigating circumstance
adduced by the prosecution to prove evident premeditation is
WITNESS: of voluntary surrender. The evidence shows that the
the testimony of Levy Avila that between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00
appellants were arrested when the police officers manning
p.m. on July 8, 1996, he heard the appellants planning to go
the checkpoint stopped the passenger jeepney driven by
Q Jaime Castillano Junior still stabbed my to the house of Diosdado and that he heard them say: "Ayaw
appellant Ronald and arrested the appellants. The fact that
husband and try to cut his ankle, Your Honor. namin kasing inaasar," and that at 8:00 p.m., the appellants
the appellants did not resist but went peacefully with the
arrived in the house of the victim and stabbed him to death.
peace officers does not mean that they surrendered
There is no evidence of any overt acts of the appellants
COURT: voluntarily.67
when they decided to kill Diosdado and how they would
consummate the crime. There is no evidence of any overt
Strike our (sic) the previous answer of the witness. acts perpetrated by the appellants between 5:00 and 8:00 There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstances in
p.m. that they clung to their determination to kill Diosdado. the commission of the crime, the appellants should be meted
the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63
ATTY. BALLEBAR: of the Revised Penal Code.
There is treachery in the commission of a crime when (a) at
the time of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
Q By the way, will you tell us how many times himself; (b) the offender consciously and deliberately The Civil Liabilities of the Appellants
did Ronald Castillano stab your husband? adopted the particular means, methods and forms of attack
employed by him.63 Even a frontal attack may be treacherous
The trial court awarded the total amount of P177,421 as civil
A I cannot determine how many times he when unexpected on an unarmed victim who would not be in
indemnity, actual and moral damages in favor of the heirs of
even stabbed my husband on his left eye. a position to repel the attack or avoid it.64 In this case, the
the victim Diosdado. The Court has to modify the awards.
victim was unarmed and was supinely resting before
sleeping after a hard day’s work. Although Luz warned the
Q How about Jaime Castillano Jr., how many victim that the appellants were already approaching their Appellants Ronald and Jaime, Jr. are obliged to pay jointly
times did he stab your husband? house, however, the victim remained unperturbed when the and severally the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity;
appellants barged into the victim’s house. They stabbed him P50,000 as moral damages; P25,000 as exemplary
A I cannot determine exactly how many times repeatedly with diverse deadly weapons. The victim had nary damages in view of the aggravating circumstance of
but he repeatedly stabbed my husband.59 a chance to defend himself and avoid the fatal thrusts of the dwelling;68and the amount of P18,300 for funeral and
appellants. religious services. The heirs of the victim failed to adduce in
evidence any receipts or documentary evidence to prove
The mere denial appellant Jaime, Jr. of the crime charged is their claim for food and other expenses during the wake.
but a negative self-serving which cannot prevail over the The crime was committed in the house of the victim. There
However, they are entitled to temperate damages in the
positive and straightforward testimony of Luz and the was no provocation on the part of the victim. Dwelling thus
amount of P5,000, conformably with the ruling of the Court
physical evidence on record.60 aggravated the crime. However, dwelling was not alleged in
in People v. dela Tongga.69 His wife Luz’s testimony that the
victim had an annual income of more than P65,000 is not
sufficient as basis for an award for unearned income for
being self-serving. There was no proof of the average
expense of the victim and his family and his net income.
In People v. Ereño,70 this Court held that:

… It bears stress that compensation for lost


income is in the nature of damages and as such
requires due proof of the damage suffered; there
must be unbiased proof of the deceased’s average
income. In the instant case, the victim’s mother,
Lita Honrubia, gave only a self-serving hence
unreliable statement of her deceased daughter’s
income. Moreover, the award for lost income refers
to the net income of the deceased, that is, her total
income less her average expenses. No proof of
the victim’s average expenses was presented.
Hence, there can be no reliable estimate of the
deceased’s lost income.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the


Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur, Branch 31 in Criminal
Case No. P-2542 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellants Ronald Castillano alias "Nono" and Jaime
Castillano, Jr. alias "Junjun" are found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery,
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code. There being no modifying
circumstances in the commission of the crime, the appellants
are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. They
are, likewise, ordered to pay jointly and severally to the heirs
of the victim, Diosdado Volante, the amounts of P50,000 as
civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; P18,300 as
actual damages; P25,000 as exemplary damages; and
P5,000 as temperate damages. Costs against the
appellants.

SO ORDERED.
left anterior and the left mid roadside Herminio Mansueto and Roberto
axillary line up to the left 4th Descartin alias "Ruby" engaged in conversation. Pansing
intercostal space including all approached them and asked Mansueto if he would be
muscle underlying the skin interested in buying two of her pigs for P1,400.00. Mansueto
exposing the ribs. said "yes" and promised that he would be right back.
G.R. No. 90198 November 7, 1995
Cause of death: Internal Mansueto and Ruby meantime proceeded to the latter's
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, hemorrhage due to stab piggery. Joelito Descartin and his brother-in-law Rene were
vs. wound. also seen going to the place. After some time, Pansing
ANTONIO PLASENCIA y noticed Joelito take Mansueto's bicycle. Believing that
DESAMPARADO alias "Tonying," ROBERTO Mansueto was already preparing to leave and in her desire
after which the body was placed inside a
DESCARTIN y PASICARAN alias"Ruby" and JOELITO to catch up with him, Pansing promptly walked towards the
plastic bag and brought to an open sea
(JULITO), DESCARTIN y PASICARAN, accused-appellants. piggery which was around 100 meters away from her house.
by the pump boat owned by Roberto
She could see Mansueto leaning on the pigsty with Ruby on
Descartin y Pasicaran and operated by
his right side and Antonio Plasencia alias "Tonying" on his
VITUG, J.: Joelito Descartin y Pasicaran and
left; behind was Joelito.2 Midway, she was halted on her
dumped to the water by herein accused,
tracks; she suddenly saw Antonio stab Mansueto. The latter
and as a result of which said Herminio
Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito (Julito) staggered towards Ruby who himself then delivered another
Mansueto died, herein accused, in
Descartin were accused of robbery with homicide in an stab blow. Mansueto fell on his back. Joelito started hitting
pursuance of their conspiracy, wilfully,
information, dated 20 December 1984, that read: Mansueto on the forehead while Rene held Mansueto's
unlawfully and feloniously and with
legs.3 Except for a coconut tree and some ipil-ipil trees
intent to gain, took and carried away the
around the area, nothing obstructed Pansing's line of vision.
That on or about the 29th day of personal property belonging to Herminio
Pansing rushed back home. The image of Antonio waving
November, 1984 at around 3:00 o'clock Mansueto, namely: one (1) Seiko 5
the weapon and the thought that she might herself be killed
in the afternoon, more or less, in sitio "Stop Watch" valued at P3,000.00; one
kept her from revealing to anyone what she saw.4
San Juan, Barangay Patao, Municipality (1) Bicycle (standard size) valued at
of Bantayan, Province of Cebu, P1,000.00; and cash in the amount of
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of P10,000.00, all in the total amount of The following day, in Kodia, Madridejos, Cebu, where
this Honorable Court, the said accused FOUR-TEEN THOUSAND PESOS Mansueto resided, his daughter Rosalinda reported to
conspiring and confederating together (P14,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the Francisca Tayo, the barangay captain, that her father had not
and mutually helping one another, did damage and prejudice of said oner (sic) returned home. Tayo proceeded to Putian, which was in
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and in the said total sum. Mansueto's itinerary, and then to Ruby's piggery in Patao,
feloniously, and with treachery, evident where a youngster, who turned out to be Ruby's son,
premeditation and taking advantage of innocently informed her that Mansueto's bicycle was taken
All contrary to law, and with the
their superior number and strength and by Joelito.5
qualifying circumstance of alevosia, and
with intent to kill, treacherously attack, the generic aggravating circumstance of
assault and use personal violence upon known premeditation. The day after, Francisca Tayo, accompanied by police
Herminio Mansueto, thereby inflicting officers of Madridejos, Cebu, and some relatives of
upon him the following physical injuries: Mansueto, went back to Ruby's place. On a railing of the
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
pigpen, she saw blood stains. When she asked Ruby's father
1. Stab wounds which was about it, he said that the stains had come from chicken
approximately two inches in When arraigned, all the accused entered a plea of "not blood. Going around the piggery, she also saw blood stains
length, parallel to the ribs and guilty" to the charge; whereupon, trial commenced. on a bamboo pole, which Ruby's father once again so
is located 1 1/2 inches below identified as chicken blood. At the back of the piggery,
the right nipple on the right Francisca noticed a digging which looked like an empty
The prosecution sought to establish, as follows:
anterior axillary line and on grave. The digging was measured and photos were taken.
the fifth intercostal space. On The police found a hat at the back of a hut beside the
probing the wound was At around ten o'clock in the morning of 29 November 1984, piggery, which was later recognized to be that which
penetrating immediately up to Herminio Mansueto, wearing a blue and white striped t-shirt, belonged to Mansueto.6
the left parasternal border maong pants, Seiko 5 stop watch and a pandan hat, left on
approximately hitting the his bicycle for Barangay Patao, Bantayan, Cebu. He had In the morning of 30 November 1984, Patrolman Elpidio
heart; with him P10,000.00 cash which he would use to purchase Desquitado of the Bantayan police went back to the piggery.
hogs from a certain "Ruby." This time, the police learned from Pansing herself that
2. Hacking wound 9 inches in Joelito took Mansueto's bicycle.7 Joelito was invited to the
length extending from the In Patao, Francisca Espina, also known in the locality as police headquarters to shed light on the case. Later, Joelito,
coracoid process of the left Pansing and whose house was just across the street from waiving his right to counsel, executed a "confession."8
clavicle passing between the the respective residences of the three accused, saw at the
Joelito narrated that, upon Ruby's instruction, he brought the accused was reclusion perpetua with a joint and several civil A. Witness showing to the court her left palm and
bicycle to the piggery. Unexpectedly, he said, Tonying liability for indemnification to the heirs of Herminio Mansueto the following words have been written in her palm
Plasencia stabbed Mansueto. Stunned, Joelito tried to run in the amount of P30,000.00. in ball pen handwritten words and number of the
away but Tonying stopped him. Tonying then dragged the pumpboat No. 56 and there is another word
victim to a nearby house. Threatened by Tonying, Joelito "petsa" and there are words which cannot be
The instant appeal was interposed by the three convicted
agreed to later return to where the victim's body was deciphered and all found in the palm of the left
appellants.
dragged. At around eleven o'clock that evening, tonying and hand.
Joelito placed the body in a sack. Tonying asked Ruby to
allow the use of the latter's pumpboat to ferry the body. Appellant Antonio Plasencia attacks the credibility of the
ATTY. MONTECLAR:
Tonying paddled the pumpboat to the island of Po-Po'o prosecution's lone eyewitness, Francisca Espina, alleging
where he picked up some pieces of stones. Then, again that she is a pejured witness who has an axe to grind against
paddling the pumpboat farther away from the island, he him because his dog had once bitten Francisca's child. 16 He That is all.
ordered Joelito to start the engine of the boat. They headed bewails the fact that it has taken Francisca until 29
for the islet of Gilotongin (Hilotongan). On the way, Tonying December 1984 to reveal what she supposedly has seen to
ATTY. GONZALES: RE-CROSS
filled the sack with stones and, using a rope, tied to it the the police authorities. Contending that treachery has not
body of the victim. Tonying then unloaded their cargo into the been duly proven as "no wound was inflicted at the back and
sea. as a matter of fact only one wound was fatal," 17 appellant Q Mrs. witness, you cannot deny of what these
argues that even if conspiracy were to be considered to have physical evidences or writings on the palm of your
attended the commission of the crime, he could be held left hand. I want you to be honest, the law will not
Guided by Joelito, members of the Bantayan police force
liable with the others, if at all, only for homicide. allow you to lie, you are subject to punishment and
headed for the islet of Hilotongan on two pumpboats 9 in the
penalty. My question is, who wrote this on the
area pinpointed to be the place where the body was
palm of your left hand?
dumped. On the second day of the search, the group was Appellant Roberto Descartin, likewise challenging Francisca
informed that the body had already surfaced near the vicinity Espina's credibility because of her alleged inconsistencies,
of the search and delivered to the municipal building. 10 faults the trial court for allowing the witness to glance at the A I was the one who wrote this.
notes written on her palm while testifying. He also argues
that his alibi, being corroborated, should have been given
The municipal health officer of Bantayan, Dr. Oscar Quirante, Q Why did you write that down?
weight.
examined the body and concluded that the victim died of
internal hemorrhage due to stab wounds. 11 The bloated
body was in a late stage of decomposition and its skin had A I was the one who wrote this.
Appellant Joelito Descartin, in assailing the credibility of
sloughed off. 12 He found the victim's face to be "beyond Francisca, has noted her "jittery actuation" while giving her
recognition." There were "some rope signs in the body testimony. He also questions the findings of the ponente for Q Why, what was your purpose of writing that in
particularly in the waistline and in the knees." 13 not being the presiding judge during the examination of your palm?
Francisca on the witness stand.
The main defense interposed is one of alibi. A I wrote this in my palm because I wanted to be
The focus of this appeal is clearly one of credibility. The initial sure of what time the incident happened, was the
assessment on the testimony of a witness is done by the trial same as that I wrote in my palm.
Antonio stated that on the whole day of 29 November 1984,
court, and its findings still deserve due regard
he was out at sea fishing with his son. Joelito, on his part,
notwithstanding that the presiding judge who pens the
asserted that he was in Barrio Baod, about an hour's walk Q And who furnished you the data in which you
decision is not the one who personally may have heard the
from his residence, at the house of his fiancee. He returned wrote in the palm of your hand?
testimony. 18 The reliance on the transcript of stenographic
to his house, he said, only the day after. Roberto ("Ruby"),
notes should not, for that reason alone, render the judgment
Joelito's uncle, testified that on that fateful day, he was in
subject to challenge. 19 The continuity of the court and the A I was the one who made that.
Samoco Purok 2, Iligan City, and then left for Cebu on 06
efficacy of its decision are not affected by the cessation from
December 1984 only after receiving a telegraph that Joelito
the service of the judge presiding it 20or by the fact that its
was implicated in the crime. ATTY. GONZALES:
writer merely took over from a colleague who presided at the
trial. 21
The Regional Trial Court 14 did not give credence to the Q You don't understand my question. You wrote
defense of alibi. It convicted the three accused of murder that writing but where did you get that data?
It is asserted that the testimony of Francisca Espina should
(punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code),
not be given worth since, while testifying, she would at times
instead of robbery with homicide, explaining that the term
be seen reading some notes written on her left palm. Thus A. This is just of what I know.
"homicide" was used in the information in its generic

sense. 15 Finding conspiracy, the trial court ruled that the
killing was qualified by both treachery and abuse of superior Q Since you claim to have all this knowledge of
strength with the latter, however, being absorbed by the Q. May I see your left hand, may I see what is your mind, why did you find it necessary to write
former. No other aggravating or mitigating circumstances written there? that in the palm of your hand and I notice during
being attendant in the commission of the crime, the trial court the trial that you used to look in your palm, why, is
said, the penalty that could be imposed upon each of the
that necessary in your believe to testify here to evidence must be received with caution. falsehood 31 even as they also erase suspicion of rehearsed
what you knew about the incident. (Emphasis supplied.) testimony.32

A Because of the fact that I have an headache. Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on All considered, the case against the appellants has been
the sound discretion of the trial court. 23 In this proven beyond reasonable doubt even with the retracted
case, the exercise of that discretion has not been extra-judicial admission of Joelito Descartin. 33 The testimony
Q When did this headache occur?
abused; the witness herself has explained that she of a single witness, if found to be credible, is adequate for
merely wanted to be accurate on dates and like conviction, 34 The defense of alibi hardly can overcome the
A After I left my house because my sick child. details. positive identification of an unprejudiced eyewitness. 35

Q Now, knowing that you have an headache, did Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca's appearing to be Like the trial court, we are not persuaded that robbery has
you not bring this to the attention of the Fiscal? "jittery" on the witness stand. Nervousness and anxiety of a been proven to be the principal motive for the crime that can
witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those warrant the conviction of appellants for the complex crime of
who are called to testify for the first time. The real concern, in robbery with homicide. 36 Appellants could only thus be held
A No, I did not tell the Fiscal. fact, should be when they show no such emotions. responsible for the killing of Mansueto. Conspiracy among
the appellants has been established beyond doubt by the
Q Do you know of your own that doing this is sum of their deeds pointing to a joint purpose and design. 37
Francisca did fail in immediately reporting the killing to the
unfair and is not allowable while testifying in open police authorities. Delay or vacillation, however, in making a
court, do you know that is illegal act? criminal accusation does not necessarily adulterate the Three aggravating circumstances were alleged in the
credibility of the witness. 24 Francisca, in her case, has information, i.e., treachery, evident premeditation and abuse
A No, I did not, know. expressed fears for her life considering that the assailants, of superior strength. The trial court disregarded the
being her neighbors, could easily exact retribution on circumstance of evident premeditation and concluded that
her. 25 Also, the hesitancy in reporting the occurrence of a the attack upon Mansueto was committed with treachery and
Q And you did all of this claiming that you do not crime in rural areas is not unknown. 26 abuse of superior strength. On its finding that the assault
know about the incident for the purpose of giving was unexpectedly perpetrated upon the unarmed victim to
here testimony against the accused? ensure its execution without risk to themselves from the
Francisca's inability to respond to the summons for another
defense that the victim might make, the trial court
appearance in court for further questioning was satisfactorily
A Yes, sir. 22 appreciated treachery, which it deemed as having so
explained by the prosecution. Francisca at the time just had
absorbed abuse of superior strength.
a miscarriage and was found to be too weak to travel. The
The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness recall of the witness was, after all, at the sound discretion of
is not altogether proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132, of the the trial court. 27 The trial court was correct when it concluded that the crime
Rules of Court states: committed was murder, a crime technically lower than
robbery with homicide, 38 not, however, because of the
The claim of appellant Roberto Descartin that Francisca and
attendance of treachery but of abuse of superior strength.
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to her husband, a tuba-gatherer, owed him P300.00, and the
Treachery, in our view, was not satisfactorily proven by the
memorandum. — A witness may be assertion made by appellant Antonio Plasencia on the dog-
prosecution. Francisca Espina simply testified that appellant
allowed to refresh his memory biting story involving Francisca's son truly were too petty to
Plasencia stabbed Mansueto while the latter and the
respecting a fact, by anything written or consider. It would be absurd to think that Francisca, for such
appellants were in a huddle. There was nothing adduced on
recorded by himself or under his trivial reasons was actually impelled to falsely implicate
whether or not the victim gave provocation, an indispensable
direction at the time when the fact appellants for so grave an offense as murder.
issue in the proper appreciation of treachery. 39 The
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or presence, nonetheless, of the aggravating circumstance of
at any other time when the fact was Appellants questioned Francisca's ability to recognize them abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to
fresh in his memory and he knew that from a distance. Francisca knew appellants well; they all murder. 40 The three appellants utilized superiority in
the same was correctly written or were her neighbors while Antonio Plasencia himself was her numbers and employed deadly weapons in assaulting the
recorded; but in such case the writing or cousin. 28 The crime occurred at around three o'clock in the unarmed Mansueto.
record must be produced and may be afternoon only about fifty (50) meters away from her. With an
inspected by the adverse party, who unobstructed view, Francisca's positive identification of the
may, if he chooses, cross-examine the There being no other aggravating or mitigating
culprits should be a foregone matter. 29
witness upon it and may read it in circumstances to consider, the trial court aptly imposed the
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify penalty of reclusion perpetua, the medium period 41 of the
from such a writing or record, though he The alleged inconsistencies in Francisca's testimony and in penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death prescribed
retain no recollection of the particular her sworn statement of 18 December 1984, cover matters of by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In conformity with
facts, if he is able to swear that the little significance. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prevailing jurisprudential law, the heirs of the victim should
writing or record correctly stated the witnesses do not detract from their credibility; 30 on the be indemnified in the amount of P50,000.00. 42
transaction when made; but such contrary, they serve to strengthen their credibility and are
taken as badges of truth rather than as indicia of
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting The Sub-Contractor (SOCOR c. That the Contractor shall pay the
appellants Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito Corporation) and the Contractor (RDC Supplier the volume of the supplied
(Julito) Descartin of the crime of murder and imposing on Construction) for the consideration items on the actual weight in metric tons
each of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby hereinafter named, hereby agree as
delivered and accepted by the MPWH
AFFIRMED with the modification that the indemnity to the follows:
heirs of the victim, Herminio Mansueto, is raised to fifteen (15) days after the submission of
P50,000.00. Costs against appellants. SO ORDERED. the bill;
1. SCOPE OF WORK:
d. The delivery will commence upon the
G.R. No. 96202 April 13, 1999 a. The Sub-Contractor agrees to acceptance of the offer.
perform and execute the Supply, Lay
ROSELLA D. CANQUE, petitioner, and Compact Item 310 and Item 302; On May 28, 1986, private respondent
vs.
sent petitioner a bill (Exh. C), containing
THE COURT OF APPEALS and SOCOR CONSTRUCTION b. That Contractor shall provide the
CORPORATION, respondents. a revised computation, 6 for
labor and materials needed to complete P299,717.75, plus interest at rate of 3%
the project; a month, representing the balance of
MENDOZA, J
petitioner's total account of
c. That the Contractor agrees to pay the P2,098,400.25 for materials delivered
This petition for review on certiorari seeks a reversal of the Sub-Contractor the price of One and services rendered by private
decision 1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment 2 of Thousand Pesos only (P1,000.00) per respondent under the two contracts.
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City ordering petitioner — Metric Ton of Item 310 and Eight However, petitioner refused to pay the
Thousand Only (P8,000.00) per Metric amount, claiming that private
. . . to pay [private respondent] the Ton of Item 302. respondent failed to submit the delivery
principal sum of Two Hundred Ninety
receipts showing the actual weight in
Nine Thousand Seven Hundred d. That the Contractor shall pay the Sub-
Seventeen Pesos and Seventy Five metric tons of the items delivered and
Contractor the volume of the supplied
Centavos (P299,717.75) plus interest the acceptance thereof by the
Item based on the actual weight in
thereon at 12% per annum from government. 7
September 22, 1986, the date of the Metric Tons delivered, laid and
filing of the complaint until fully paid; to compacted and accepted by the MPWH;
pay [private respondent] the further sum Hence, on September 22, 1986, private respondent brought
of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for e. The construction will commence upon suit in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu to recover from
reasonable attorney's fees; to pay the petitioner the sum of P299,717.75, plus interest at the rate of
the acceptance of the offer.
sum of Five Hundred Fifty Two Pesos 3% a month.
and Eighty Six Centavos (P552.86) for The second contract (Exh. B), 5 dated July 23,
filing fees and to pay the costs of suit. In her answer, petitioner admitted the existence of the
1985, stated:
Since [private respondent] withdrew its contracts with private respondent as well as receipt of the
prayer for an alias writ of preliminary billing (Exh. C), dated May 28, 1986. However, she disputed
attachment vis-a-vis the [petitioner's] The Supplier (SOCOR Construction) the correctness of the bill —
counterbound, the incident on and the Contractor (RDC Construction)
the alias writ of preliminary attachment for the consideration hereinafter named,
has become moot and academic. . . . considering that the deliveries of
hereby agree as follows:
[private respondent] were not signed
and acknowledged by the checkers of
The facts are as follows: 1. SCOPE OF WORK: [petitioner], the bituminous tack coat it
delivered to [petitioner] consisted of 60%
Petitioner Rosella D. Canque is a contractor doing business a. The Supplier agrees to perform and water, and [petitioner] has already paid
under the name and style RDC Construction. At the time [private respondent] about
execute the delivery of Item 310 and
material to this case, she had contracts with the government P1,400,000.00 but [private respondent]
Item 302 to the jobsite for the Asphalting has not issued any receipt to [petitioner]
for (a) the restoration of Cebu-Toledo wharf road; (b) the of DAS Access Road and the Front Gate
asphalting of Lutopan access road; and (c) the asphalting of for said payments and there is no
of ACMDC, Toledo City; agreement that [private respondent] will
Babag road in Lapulapu City. 3 In connection with these
projects, petitioner entered into two contracts with private charge 3% per month interest. 8
respondent Socor Construction Corporation. The first b. That the Contractor should inform or
contract (Exh. A), 4 dated April 26, 1985, provided: give notice to the Supplier two (2) days Petitioner subsequently amended her answer denying she
before the delivery of such items; had entered into sub-contracts with private respondent. 9
During the trial, private respondent, as plaintiff, presented its II. THE DECISION OF THE 4. The entries were made in his
vice-president, Sofia O. Sanchez, and Dolores Aday, its RESPONDENT COURT SHOULD BE professional capacity or in the
bookkeeper. REVERSED AS IT HAS ONLY performance of a duty, whether legal,
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO contractual, moral or religious; and
10 SUPPORT IT.
Petitioner's evidence consisted of her lone testimony.
5. The entries were made in the ordinary
First. Petitioner contends that the presentation of the delivery or regular course of business or duty. 16
On June 22, 1988, the trial court rendered its decision
receipts duly accepted by the then Ministry of Public Works
ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of
and Highways (MPWH) is required under the contracts
P299,717.75 plus interest at 12% per annum, and costs. It As petitioner points out, the business entries in question
(Exhs. A and B) and is a condition precedent for her payment
held: (Exh. K) do not meet the first and third requisites. Dolores
of the amount claimed by private respondent. Petitioner
Aday, who made the entries, was presented by private
argues that the entries in private respondent's Book of
respondent to testify on the account of RDC Construction. It
. . . . [B]y analyzing the plaintiff's Book of Collectible Accounts (Exh. K) cannot take the place of the
was in the course of her testimony that the entries were
Collectible Accounts particularly page 17 delivery receipts and that such entries are mere hearsay
presented and marked in evidence. There was, therefore,
thereof (Exh. "K") this Court is and, thus, inadmissible in evidence. 14
neither justification nor necessity for the presentation of the
convinced that the entries (both
entries as the person who made them was available to testify
payments and billings) recorded thereat
We agree with the appellate court that the stipulation in the in court.
are credible. Undeniably, the book
two contracts requiring the submission of delivery receipts
contains a detailed account of SOCOR's
does not preclude proof of delivery of materials by private
commercial transactions with RDC Necessity is given as a ground for
respondent in some other way. The question is whether the
which were entered therein in the course admitting entries, in that they are the
entries in the Book of Collectible Accounts (Exh. K)
of business. We cannot therefore best available evidence. Said a learned
constitute competent evidence to show such delivery. Private
disregard the entries recorded under judge: "What a man has actually done
respondent cites Rule 130, §37 of the Rules of Court and
Exhibit "K" because the fact of their and committed to writing when under
argues that the entries in question constitute "entries in the
having been made in the course of obligation to do the act, it being in the
course of business" sufficient to prove deliveries made for
business carries with it some degree of course of the business he has
the government projects. This provision reads:
trustworthiness. Besides, no proof was undertaken, and he being dead, there
ever offered to demonstrate the seems to be no danger in submitting to
irregularity of the said entries thus, there Entries in the course of business. — the consideration of the court." The
is then no cogent reason for us to doubt Entries made at, or near the time of the person who maybe called to court to
their authenticity. 11 transactions to which they refer, by a testify on these entries being dead,
person deceased, outside of the there arises the necessity of their
Philippines or unable to testify, who was admission without the one who made
The trial court further ruled that in spite of the fact that the
in a position to know the facts therein them being called to court be sworn and
contracts did not have any stipulation on interest, interest
stated, may be received as prima subjected to cross-examination. And this
may be awarded in the form of damages under Article 2209
facie evidence, if such person made the is permissible in order to prevent a
of the Civil Code. 12
entries in his professional capacity or in failure of justice. 17
the performance of duty and in the
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It upheld the trial ordinary or regular course of business or
Moreover, Aday admitted that she had no personal
court's' reliance on private respondent's Book of Collectible duty. 15
knowledge of the facts constituting the entry. She said she
Accounts (Exh. K) on the basis of Rule 130, §37 13 of the
made the entries based on the bills given to her. But she has
Rules of Court.
The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books no knowledge of the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the
requires the satisfaction of the following conditions: bills. The deliveries of the materials stated in the bills were
Hence, this appeal. Petitioner contends that — supervised by "an engineer for (such) functions." 18 The
person, therefore, who has personal knowledge of the facts
1. The person who made the entry must
stated in the entries, i.e., that such deliveries were made in
I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED be dead, outside the country or unable
the amounts and on the dates stated, was the company's
IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE AS to testify;
project engineer. The entries made by Aday show only that
ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF the billings had been submitted to her by the engineer and
BUSINESS THE ENTRIES IN PRIVATE
2. The entries were made at or near the that she faithfully recorded the amounts stared therein in the
RESPONDENT'S BOOK OF
time of the transactions to which they books of account. Whether or not the bills given to Aday
COLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
refer; correctly reflected the deliveries made in the amounts and on
CONSIDERING THAT THE PERSON the dates indicated was a fact that could be established by
WHO MADE SAID ENTRIES the project engineer alone who, however, was not presented
ACTUALLY TESTIFIED IN THIS CASE 3. The entrant was in a position to know during trial. The rule is stated by former Chief Justice Moran,
BUT UNFORTUNATELY HAD NO the facts stated in the entries; thus:
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF SAID
ENTRIES.
[W]hen the witness had no personal Where the evidence is inadmissible for testimony has been refreshed by a
knowledge of the facts entered by him, the purpose stated in the offer, it must memorandum of the events in dispute,
and the person who gave him the be rejected, though the same may be such memorandum is not admissible as
information is individually known and admissible for another purpose. The rule corroborative evidence. It is self-evident
may testify as to the facts stated in the is stated thus: "If a party . . . opens the that a witness may not be corroborated
entry which is not part of a system of particular view with which he offers any by any written statement prepared
entries where scores of employees have part of his evidence, or states the object wholly by him. He cannot be more
intervened, such entry is not admissible to be attained by it, he precludes himself credible just because he supports his
without the testimony of the informer. 19 from insisting on its operation in any open-court declaration with written
other direction, or for any other object; statements of the same facts even if he
and the reason is, that the opposite did prepare them during the occasion in
Second. It is nonetheless argued by private respondent that
party is prevented from objecting to its dispute, unless the proper predicate of
although the entries cannot be considered an exception to
competency in any view different from his failing memory is priorly laid down.
the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule 132,
the one proposed. 21 What is more, even where this
§10 20 of the Rules of Court which provides:
requirement has been satisfied, the
express injunction of the rule itself is that
It should be noted, however, that Exh. K is not really being
Sec. 10. When witness may refer to such evidence must be received with
presented for another purpose. Private respondent's counsel
memorandum. — A witness may be caution, if only because it is not very
offered it for the purpose of showing the amount of
allowed to refresh his memory difficult to conceive and fabricate
petitioner's indebtedness. He said:
respecting a fact, by anything written by evidence of this nature. This is doubly
himself or under his direction at the time true when the witness stands to gain
when the fact occurred, or immediately Exhibit "K," your Honor — faithful materially or otherwise from the
thereafter, or at any other time when the reproduction of page (17) of the book on admission of such evidence . . . . 24
fact was fresh in his memory and he Collectible Accounts of the plaintiff,
knew that the same was correctly stated reflecting the principal indebtedness of
As the entries in question (Exh. K) were not made based on
in the writing; but in such case the defendant in the amount of Two hundred
personal knowledge, they could only corroborate Dolores
writing must be produced and may be ninety-nine thousand seven hundred
Aday's testimony that she made the entries as she received
inspected by the adverse party, who seventeen pesos and seventy-five
the bills.
may, if he chooses, cross-examine the centavos (P299,717.75) and reflecting
witness upon it, and may read it in as well the accumulated interest of three
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify percent (3%) monthly compounded such Third. Does this, therefore, mean there is no competent
from such a writing, though he retain no that as of December 11, 1987, the evidence of private respondent's claim as petitioner
recollection of the particular facts, if he amount collectible from the defendant by argues? 25 The answer is in the negative. Aside from Exh. K,
is able to swear that the writing correctly the plaintiff is Six hundred sixteen private respondent presented the following documents:
stated the transaction when made; but thousand four hundred thirty-five pesos
such evidence must be received with and seventy-two centavos
1) Exhibits A — Contract Agreement
caution. (P616,435.72); 22
dated 26 April 1985 which contract
covers both the Toledo wharf project and
On the other hand, petitioner contends that evidence which This is also the purpose for which its admission is the Babag Road project in Lapulapu
is inadmissible for the purpose for which it was offered sought as a memorandum to refresh the memory City.
cannot be admitted for another purpose. She cites the of Dolores Aday as a witness. In other words, it is
following from Chief Justice Moran's commentaries: the nature of the evidence that is changed, not the
2) Exhibit B — Contract Agreement
purpose for which it is offered.
dated 23 July 1985 which covers the
The purpose for which the evidence is DAS Asphalting Project.
offered must be specified. Where the Be that as it may, considered as a memorandum, Exh. K
offer is general, and the evidence is does not itself constitute evidence. As explained
3) Exhibit C — Revised Computation of
admissible for one purpose and in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals:23
Billings submitted on May 28, 1986.
inadmissible for another, the evidence
should be rejected. Likewise, where the
Under the above provision (Rule 132,
offer is made for two or more purposes 4) Exhibit D — an affidavit executed by
§10), the memorandum used to refresh
and the evidence is incompetent for one [petitioner] to the effect that she has no
the memory of the witness does not
of them, the evidence should be more pending or unsettled obligations as
constitute evidence, and may not be
excluded. The reason for the rule is that far as Toledo Wharf Road is concerned.
admitted as such, for the simple reason
"it is the duty of a party to select the
that the witness has just the same to
competent from the incompetent in
testify on the basis of refreshed memory. 5) Exhibit D-1 — Statement of Work
offering testimony, and he cannot
In other words, where the witness has Accomplished on the Road Restoration
impose this duty upon the trial court."
testified independently of or after his of Cebu-Toledo wharf project.
6) Exhibit E — another affidavit performance. In view of these facts, we
executed by [petitioner] attesting that believe Art. 1235 of the New Civil Code
she has completely paid her laborers at is applicable.
the project located at Babag, Lapulapu
City
Art. 1235. When the obligee
accepts the performance,
7) Exhibits F, G, G-1, G-2, G-3 — knowing its incompleteness
Premiums paid by [private respondent] and irregularity and without
together with the receipts for filing fees. expressing any protest or
objection, the obligation is
deemed complied with.
8) Exhibits H, I, J — certifications issued
by OIC, MPWH, Regional Office;
Lapulapu City, City Engineer; Toledo FINALLY, after a conscientious scrutiny
City Treasurer's Office respectively, of the records, we find Exhibit "D-1" (p.
proving that RDC construction has no 85 record) to be a material proof of
more collectibles with all the said plaintiff's complete fulfillment of its
government offices in connection with its obligation.
projects.
There is no question that plaintiff
10) Exhibit L — Bill No. 057 under the supplied RDC Construction with Item
account of RDC Construction in the 302 (Bitunimous Prime Coat), Item 303
amount of P153,382.75 dated August (Bituminous Tack Coat) and Item 310
24, 1985. (Bitunimous Concrete Surface Course)
in all the three projects of the latter. The
Lutopan Access Road project, the
11) Exhibit M — Bill No. 069 (RDC's
Toledo wharf project and the Babag-
account), in the amount of
Lapulapu Road project.
P1,701,795.00 dated November 20,
1985.
On the other hand, no proof was ever
offered by defendant to show the
12) Exhibit N — Bill No. 071 (RDC's
presence of other contractors in those
account) in the amount of P47,250.00
projects. We can therefore conclude that
dated November 22, 1985.
it was Socor Construction
Corp. ALONE who supplied RDC with
13) Exhibit O — Bill No. 079 (RDC's Bituminous Prime Coat, Bituminous Tack
account) in the amount of P7,290.00 Coat and Bituminous Concrete Surface
dated December 6, 1985. Course for all the aforenamed three
projects. 26
As the trial court found:
Indeed, while petitioner had previously paid private
respondent about P1,400,000.00 for deliveries made in the
The entries recorded under Exhibit "K" past, she did not show that she made such payments only
were supported by Exhibits "L", "M", "N", after the delivery receipts had been presented by private
"O" which are all Socor Billings under respondent. On the other hand, it appears that petitioner was
the account of RDC Construction. These able to collect the full amount of project costs from the
billings were presented and duly government, so that petitioner would be unjustly enriched at
received by the authorized the expense of private respondent if she is not made to pay
representatives of defendant. The what is her just obligation the contracts.
circumstances obtaining in the case at
bar clearly show that for a long period of
time after receipt thereof, RDC never WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
manifested its dissatisfaction or AFFIRMED.
objection to the aforestated billings
submitted by plaintiff. Neither did
SO ORDERED.
defendant immediately protest to
plaintiff's alleged incomplete or irregular

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen