Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Page 1 of 6 Art 247 THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 108491 July 2, 1998 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

SERGIO AMAMANGPANG, accused-appellant. KAPUNAN, J.: In the early mornin of ! Novem"er #$$#, S%O# %lacido &lores, a mem"er of the %hilippine National %olice in 'armen, (ohol, )as fatally hac*ed )ith a scythe and shot )ith a .+! cali"er revolver in the home of appellant Ser io ,maman pan in -uadalupe, 'armen, (ohol. On #. /anuary #$$0, appellant )as char ed )ith the murder of &lores in an information )hich read, thus1 That on or a"out the !th day of Novem"er, #$$#, in the municipality of 'armen, province of (ohol, %hilippines and )ithin the 2urisdiction of this Honora"le 'ourt, the a"ove-named accused, )ith intent to *ill and )ithout 2ustifia"le cause, )ith treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there )illfully, unla)fully and feloniously attac*, assault and stri*e )ith a scythe and then shoot )ith the use of the service hand un )hich the accused )rested from the victim, S%O# %lacido &lores, )ho )as una)are of the attac*, there"y inflictin mortal in2uries on the vital parts of the victim3s "ody )hich resulted in the death of the said S%O# %lacido &lores4 to the dama e and pre2udice of the heirs of the deceased in the amount to "e proved durin the trial. ,cts committed contrary to the provisions of ,rticle 05! of the Revised %enal 'ode, as amended. 1 6pon arrai nment, appellant entered a plea of not uilty. The prosecution esta"lished the follo)in facts1 On ! Novem"er #$$#, at the police station in 'armen, (ohol, S%O# %lacido &lores sou ht permission from %O+ -re orio ,limpolos to o to the house of appellant )ith 7trustee-prisoner7 8lorde -alacio at around #199 a.m. It )as the "irthday of appellant3s )ife, Sinforiana and &lores )as "rin in alon 8lorde to help roast the ,maman pan 3s pi that )as that earlier "utchered. 2 On their )ay to appellant3s residence a"oard the victim3s patrol 2eep, &lores and -alacio passed :anuel Noculan )ho )as )al*in to)ards his carinderia at the pu"lic mar*et to see to the ne)ly harvested palay he had deposited there. &lores stopped and as*ed Noculan to accompany them to appellant3s house. 3 6pon reachin the ,maman pan residence, &lores and -alacio entered the house ahead of Noculan. Noculan follo)ed and upon enterin sa) &lores sittin on the stairs )ith his head restin on the ed e of a ta"le. Noculan seated himself outside the house )hile -alacio stood "eside the door. ,ppellant )as then standin near Sinforiana )ho )as coo*in in the *itchen. 4 Suddenly, from inside the house, Noculan heard a child shout, 7&ather; Don3t;7 Noculan immediately stood up and, peerin throu h the door, sa) appellant holdin a scythe and a"out to stri*e &lores )ho )as already lyin prostrate on the round, "lood oo<in from his nec*. &lores )as still )earin his fati ue pants and )hite T-shirt )ith %N% em"lem. ,ppellant3s dau hter, -enalyn had her arms around his =appellant3s> )aist. Shoc*ed "y )hat he had )itnessed, Noculan ran and hid. ?hile runnin , he heard several unshots. ! ,t the police station around 0@9 meters a)ay from the ,maman pan residence, %O+ ,limpolos heard t)o un shots follo)ed "y a rapid succession of four shots, alertin him and another patrolman. Thereafter, appellant, in "loody clothes and accompanied "y his dau hter, arrived at the police station and surrendered himself to ,limpolos. He admitted to the latter that he had *illed &lores "ut ave no reason )hy. ,ppellant surrendered a .+! Smith and ?esson revolver and empty shells. " Thereafter, police officers /ovencio A"aBe<, ,lfredo Clon as and :a daleno Dano )ere dispatched to investi ate the incident. ,t appellant3s house, they retrieved the scythe. 8 Dr. ,malia -. ,Bana, municipal health officer of 'armen, (ohol, )ho )as summoned to the crime scene, found the lifeless "ody of the victim lyin in appellant3s "edroom at the second storey of his house. 9 Her postmortem report reveals the follo)in findin s1 'ause of Death1 ,. Incised )ounds D multiple at the ff1

Page 2 of 6 Art 247 #. E F 5 inches at the nape4 "ase of the nec*4 .th ri", ri ht aFillary re ion. 0. E F #G0 inch D mid-lateral forearm, ri ht upper eFtremity. +. @ F # inch at the upper lip slicin the tip of the nose. (. unshot )ounds, multiple at the ff1 #. #G5 inch ri ht naso-maFillary "one 0 inches "elo) the ri ht eye"all4 ri ht parietal "one, + in num"er. 0. #G5 inch D entrance )ound at the ri ht posterior costal .-ri", 5 inches from the spinal column. The "ody )as supine position =sic> )ith stretched up)ard out)ard upper eFtremities. The "ody from the )aist up to his head )as all covered )ith "lood. The mat, floor, "lan*et and clothes )ere soa*ed )ith "lood. The under)ear at his an*le pants "eside the left foot and the "lan*et underneath the "ody. The room )as li hted )ith a small *erosene lamp near the Sto. NiBo ima e. The "ody )as found #-#G0 meters from the lamp and the ima e. 10 In support of its theory that the appellant *illed &lores in a fit of 2ealousy, the prosecution presented :ar arita &lores =the )ife of %lacido &lores> )ho "rou ht a certification 11 issued "y the "aran ay captain of -uadalupe, 'armen, (ohol, sho)in that a complaint had "een lod ed a ainst appellant resultin from physical in2uries he had inflicted upon a certain Simon (etonio on suspicion that (etonio and appellant3s )ife )ere havin an affair, "ut that the parties settled the case amica"ly after appellant shouldered the medical eFpenses incurred "y (etonio. &or his part, appellant admitted *illin &lores "ut claimed that he did it in defense of his )ife3s honor. ,s an alternative defense, appellant contended that his action )as 2ustified under ,rticle 05. of the Revised %enal 'ode, after he cau ht his )ife, Sinforiana and &lores en a ed in the seFual act on that fateful day. He narrated the events as follo)s1 In the evenin of . Novem"er #$$#, in honor of his )ife3s "irthday the neFt day, appellant "utchered a pi )ith the assistance of &lores and -alacio. ?hen his )ife, Sinforiana and his dau hter, -enalyn arrived, the former prepared their supper. ,fter eatin , -enalyn )ent to "ed and the rest =appellant, &lores, -alacio and Sinforiana> dran* tuba until midni ht. Su"seHuently, &lores prodded appellant to sleep in his =appellant3s> store at the pu"lic mar*et )ith -alacio to uard the store a ainst ro""ers. ,t first, appellant refused "ecause he had to )a*e up early to roast the "utchered pi . Ho)ever, he chan ed his mind )hen &lores assured him that he )ould )a*e him up at da)n )hen he =&lores> reported for duty. 12 That settled, &lores, -alacio and appellant "earded the patrol 2eep. ,fter droppin off the t)o men at the pu"lic mar*et, &lores proceeded home. ,ppellant, ho)ever, discovered that he left his store *ey at home. He tried to force open the padloc* "ut the effort proved futile. Resi ned, he sat "eside -alacio )ho )as sleepin on the "am"oo "ed near the store. :inutes later, ho)ever, appellant felt cold, so he )o*e up -alacio and they decided to o home. 13 6pon reachin appellant3s house, -alacio eFcused himself to ans)er the call of nature. ?hen appellant entered throu h the unfinished door at the "ac* of his house, he heard a noise =7*asi*as7>. He proceeded upstairs and li hted a match. To his astonishment, he sa) the halfnaked &lores on top of his )ife )ho still had her clothes on. Thereupon, appellant unsheathed his scythe and hac*ed the victim on the nec*. He attempted to stri*e a second time "ut the handle of the scythe "ro*e off. &lores )as then lyin face do)n in a cra)lin position. 14 ,ppellant 2umped on &lores3 "ac* )ho tried 7to dra) his un.7 1 The t)o rappled for possession thereof. ,fter )restin the un from &lores, appellant ran do)nstairs. &lores pursued him. ,ppellant then faced &lores and shot him on the forehead. &lores 7retraced his )ay7 and fell do)n. (ecause of his an er, appellant consumed all the un3s "ullets on the fallen &lores. 1! 'orro"oratin appellant3s story, his )ife, Sinforiana, testified that after supper she dran* a little tuba )ith her hus"and, &lores and -alacio. ,t midni ht, her hus"and follo)ed the advice of &lores to spend the ni ht in their store. ,fter her hus"and, &lores and -alacio left, she )ent to sleep )ith her dau hter. Sinforiana )as a)a*ened )hen &lores 7tried to a"use7 her. ,t first, &lores held her, tellin her that he )anted to "orro) money. She told him that she had no money as they had 2ust made purchases for their store. Respondin to )hat she said, &lores told her that he had lon developed his love for her. She thus retorted, 33%re, are you not foolishI ?e are close friends, )hy are you doin this to meI7 (ut &lores removed his pants and "riefs and em"raced her. ?hen Sinforiana tried to resist, &lores threatened to *ill her. ?hile &lores )as on top of her, and em"racin her, appellant arrived, unsheathed his scythe and hac*ed &lores. &reed from his em"race, Sinforiana ran a)ay follo)ed "y her dau hter. 1" T)elve-year-old -enalyn ,maman pan testified that she )as a)a*ened "y a noise and her mother sayin , 7%re, )hy are you still here )hen in fact you already )ent homeI7 She sa) her 7maninoy7 = odfather> &lores completelyna*ed. She told him, 7:aninoy, )hat are you oin to do )ith my motherI7 &lores ans)ered, 7Jeep Huiet there -enalyn "ecause if you )ill not, I )ill shot you.7 =sic.> /ust then, her father arrived and pulled out his scythe. -enalyn ran outside to fetch a policeman as her father instructed. She ran to)ards the pu"lic mar*et "ut, not seein

Page 3 of 6 Art 247 any policeman, she )ent "ac* home. 6pon her arrival, her father told her to o )ith him to surrender and, to ether, they proceeded to the municipal "uildin )here the police station )as located. 18 On ! Octo"er #$$0, the RT' of (ohol, (ranch #, Ta "ilaran 'ity rendered a decision convictin appellant of murder. The trial court ruled that appellant3s act of 7emptyin the "ullets of the un7 on the "ody of the victim, even )hen the latter )as 7already helpless and severely )ounded on the nape7 constituted treachery. Ci*e)ise, the trial court appreciated ni httime as a eneric a ravatin circumstance and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon appellant. The dispositive portion of the decision reads, thus1 %R8:IS8S 'ONSID8R8D, the 'ourt finds the accused S8R-IO ,:,:,N-%,N- uilty of the crime of :urder punished under ,rticle 05! of the Revised %enal 'ode and here"y sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, )ith the accessories of la) and to pay the cost. The accused S8R-IO ,:,:,N-%,N- is further ordered to indemnify the survivin spouse :ar arita &lores and the children of the late %lacido &lores in the amount of &I&TA THO6S,ND %8SOS =%@9,999.99> representin indemnity and THIRTA &IV8 THO6S,ND %8SOS =%+@,999.99> representin "urial eFpenses and in "oth instances )ithout su"sidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Smith and ?ilson =sic> revolver )ith Serial Num"er .++@@#E is ordered returned to the overnment throu h the %N% authorities. SO ORD8R8D. 19 In this appeal, appellant raises the follo)in issues1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. ?H8TH8R OR NOT JICCIN- IS /6STI&I8D ,S ,N ,'T O& D8&8NS8 O& HONOR. II. ?H8TH8R OR NOT TH8 JICCIN- H,S TH8 'H,R,'T8R O& D8,TH 6ND8R 8K'8%TION,C, 'IR'6:ST,N'8S ,S %ROVID8D &OR 6ND8R ,RTI'C8 05. O& TH8 R8VIS8D %8N,C 'OD8 O& TH8 %HICI%%IN8S. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS The trial court erred in findin the presence of the element of ni httime in appreciatin it as a ravatin circumstance. The trial court erred in findin that accused emptied the "ullets of the firearm in *illin the victim )ho )as already helpless and severely )ounded in the nape. The trial court erred in convictin the accused of the crime of murder and the su"seHuent application of the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 20

#. 0. +.

(efore oin to the main defense, )e shall first resolve the preliminaries raised "y appellant. ,ppellant contends that the pictures ta*en "y the investi ators, depictin the victim3s "ody lyin na*ed in the "edroom floor, )ere tampered )ith and suppressed "y the prosecution. In support, appellant cites the follo)in testimony of Dr. ,Bana1 L ,mon those policemen )ho came to you, do you *no) if any pictures )ere ta*en "y them or any of your companions in your directionI , There )as. L ?here is the picture no)I , I told the policeman to et a picture, the "ody of the victim did not appear in the picture. L Ho) many pictures )ere honestly ta*en "y the policemenI , One or t)o shots. L ?hen the picture )as ta*en "y the policemen, that )as the time )hen the "ody of the victim )as na*ed and lyin face upI , Aes, sir. L Aou said that the picture )as "lurred "ecause you )ere told "y the policemenI , I thin* it )as ,lfredo Cuen as )ho said it )as "lurred. I )ent to the police station I sa) the picture, it )as "lac*. L 'ould it "e possi"le that it could "e a ne ative of another shot not necessarily the shot ta*en at the time of the incidentI , It could "e. 21 ,ppellant3s contention hardly deserves consideration. ,s testified to "y Dr. ,Bana, the pictures ta*en "y the investi ators, unfortunately, turned out 7"lac*7 meanin the ima e did not come out. Hence, there )as no sense in presentin said pictures as eFhi"its. Nevertheless, it cannot "e asserted )ith certainty that &lores3 "ody, as discovered "y Dr. ,Bana )hen she arrived at the scene of the crime, )as in eFactly the same position )here he had actually fallen and died from his )ounds. The position of the "ody as descri"ed "y Dr. ,Bana contradicts the testimony of prosecution )itness Noculan that )hen his attention )as aroused "y the shout of appellant3s dau hter, he sa) appellant holdin

Page 4 of 6 Art 247 a scythe and )as a"out to stri*e &lores )ho )as lyin prostrate on the round, fully clothed, )ith "lood oo<in from his nec*. ,fter every"ody ran and hid durin the commotion, appellant )as left in the house. Therefore, from the time of the *illin up to his surrender to the authorities, appellant had the opportunity to move the "ody of the victim from the round floor to the second-storey "edroom and strip him of his lo)er arments to ma*e it appear that the victim intended to have seFual intercourse )ith his =appellant3s> )ife. ,ppellant also Huestions the failure of the prosecution to present the investi ators and -alacio as )itnesses. Sec. @, Rule ##9 of the Rules of 'ourt eFpressly provides that all criminal actions shall "e prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. 6nder this provision, the defense may not dictate on the prosecution the choice of the latter3s )itnesses as it is the prero ative of each party to determine )hich evidence to su"mit. 22 ,ppellant further claims that it )as -alacio3s role to ensure that he =appellant> )ould stay at the mar*et )hile &lores )ent "ac* to appellant3s house to 7perpetrate his lascivious scheme.7 If this )as their theory, then, it should have "een the defense )hich presented -alacio as )itness, not the prosecution. %roceedin to his main defense, appellant invo*es the 2ustifyin circumstance of defense of relative under ,rticle ## =0> of the Revised %enal 'ode1 ,rt. ##. Justifying circumstances. D The follo)in do not incur any criminal lia"ility1 #. ,nyone )ho acts in defense of his person or ri hts provided that the follo)in circumstances concur1 &irst. 6nla)ful a ression4 Second. Reasona"le necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it4 Third. Cac* of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defendin himself. 0. ,nyone )ho acts in defense of the person or ri hts of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or le itimate, natural or adopted, "rothers or sisters, or of his relatives "y affinity in the same de rees, and those "y consan uinity )ithin the fourth civil de ree, provided that the first and second reHuisites prescri"ed in the neFt precedin circumstance are present, and the further reHuisite, in case the provocation )as iven "y the person attac*ed, that the one ma*in defense had no part therein. In cases of self-defense and defense of relatives )here the accused has admitted the *illin , )e o"serve the time-honored rule that 7MhNavin made the admission, it is, thus incum"ent upon the accused to prove the 2ustifyin circumstance to the satisfaction of the court in order to "e relieved of any criminal lia"ility. In such instances, the accused must proffer stron , clear and convincin evidence of self-defense and depend not on the infirmity of the prosecution, for even if the latter )as )ea*, the plea of self-defense cannot prosper especially so )here the accused himself has admitted the *illin . . . . 23 In the case at "ar, appellant misera"ly failed to hurdle this test. His claim is "elied "y the physical evidence on record. &irst, appellant3s contention that he found &lores )ith his )ife in the "edroom at the second floor of the house =the place )here he cleaved &lores )ith his scythe> is ne ated "y the fact that "lood )as found splattered on the ta"le, the "am"oo floor and the stairs in the first floor of the house as unmista*a"ly sho)n in the pictures ta*en "y amateur photo rapher ?il"erto Da -um. 24 ?e find incredulous appellant3s eFplanation that after )restin the un from &lores he ran do)nstairs )ith &lores in pursuit and )hen he turned and shot &lores on the forehead the latter )as a"le to 7retrace his )ay7 to the "edroom on the second floor of the house "efore fallin do)n. It must "e recalled that &lores )as already severely )ounded at the nape. 'oupled )ith the unshot )ound on his forehead, )hich as testified to "y Dr. ,Bana, )as enou h to have caused instantaneous death, 2 it is, therefore, inconceiva"le that he )as still a"le to clim" "ac* up the stairs and finally collapse in the "edroom. On the contrary, the pictures are consistent )ith Noculan3s testimony that he sa) the "loodied &lores prostrate on the round in the first floor of the house and appellant poised to stri*e &lores a ain. 2! Second, appellant3s contention that he cut &lores only once )ith his scythe is repudiated "y Dr. ,Bana3s findin s that the victim3s "ody "ore three =+> incised )ounds1 at the nape, forearm and upper lip. Third, Dr. ,Bana testified that the tra2ectory of the "ullet )ounds )as 7do)n)ard7, hence 7the assailant must "e hi her in position7 than the victim. 2" She opined that the victim may have "een shot )hile already lyin prostrate on the floor. 28

Page 5 of 6 Art 247 &inally, the testimony of appellant3s dau hter that &lores )as completely na*ed 29 is materially inconsistent )ith the findin s of Dr. ,Bana that &lores )as )earin a shirt and )as na*ed only from the )aist do)n. 30 It also contradicts appellant3s o)n testimony that )hen he )as "ein pursued "y &lores, the latter )as only half-na*ed D )earin a t-shirt "ut no "rief and trousers. 31 &rom the fore oin , )e find more credi"le the theory of the prosecution that &lores )as *illed in the first floor of the house, as testified to "y Noculan. His "ody, ho)ever, )as su"seHuently carried upstairs to the "edroom and )as stripped of his pants and under)ear to ma*e it appear that appellant cau ht &lores in the act of a"usin his )ife. ,ppellant3s story, as previously discussed, is full of material discrepancies. ,ppellant testified that he cau ht &lores on top of his )ife in their "edroom on the second floor and that he reacted "y hac*in &lores )ith his scythe. (ut )hen the scythe3s handle "ro*e off, appellant 2umped on &lores3 "ac* and they rappled for possession of &lores3 un. ?hen Dr. ,Bana and the investi ators arrived, ho)ever, they found no si ns of stru le in the second floor "edroom. Dr. ,Bana testified that 7the thin s inside the room )as =sic> still in order, the Sto. NiBo and the lamp.7 32 Ci*e)ise, )hen Dr. ,Bana discovered &lores3 "ody, she found his pants "y his left foot and his under)ear stripped do)n to his an*les. 33 (ut ho) could &lores have his under)ear around his an*les at the time his "ody )as found )hen appellant specifically stated that &lores )as not )earin his trousers and "riefs )hen he chased appellant and the latter shot him. Thus, the only eFplanation for this is that appellant indeed altered the physical evidence so as to ma*e it conform to his defense. It must "e pointed out that no"ody reported the crime. The police "ecame a)are of the incident only after appellant surrendered himself. Hence, appellant had the time and opportunity to move the "ody, remove the pants, strip the under)ear do)n to the an*les and concoct the story of defendin his )ife from the lecherous intentions of &lores. The alternative defense presented "y appellant is ,rt. 05. of the Revised %enal 'ode )hich provides1 ,rt. 05.. Death of physical in2uries inflicted under eFceptional circumstances. D ,ny le ally married person )ho, havin surprised his spouse in the act of committin seFual intercourse )ith another person, shall *ill any of them or "oth of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical in2ury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical in2uries of any other *ind, he shall "e eFempt from punishment. FFF FFF FFF He asserts that his action )as the result of an er and passion after discoverin his )ife and his friend, &lores, en a ed in seFual intercourse in his o)n home. ,ppellant3s assertion is unmeritorious. His t)o "ases for eFoneration are mar*edly inconsistent )ith each other. On one hand, he claims that he )as defendin his )ife from &lores )ho )as tryin to force himself upon her. On the other, he ives the implication that his )ife and &lores )ere havin an illicit affair. Such contradictory theories are a manifest indication that appellant3s defenses are nothin "ut mere concoctions. (esides, appellant3s alternative defense is inconsistent )ith the testimonies of his )ife =Sinforiana> and dau hter =-enalyn> that &lores threatened to *ill them if they refused to accede to his )ishes. 34 The trial court, ho)ever, erred in findin that the crime )as committed )ith treachery. Treachery, )hich should "e proven as clearly as the crime itself to "e considered a Hualifyin circumstance, 3 )as not conclusively esta"lished in this case. ,ccordin to prosecution eye)itness Noculan, )hen he )as alerted to the assault "y the )arnin shout of appellant3s dau hter and he peeped inside the house, he sa) the victim already prostrate on the "am"oo floor, "lood oo<in from his nec* and a"out to "e struc* "y the appellant. Since the lone eye)itness failed to )itness the initial attack inflicted upon the victim, treachery cannot "e considered a Hualifyin circumstance. 3! In People v. Beltran, 3" )e reiterated the rule that1 . . . . There is treachery )hen, in the commission of the crime, the offender employs means, methods and forms )hich directly and specially insure the eFecution thereof )ithout ris* to himself arisin from any defense the offender party mi ht ma*e. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation by the victim. n the case at bar! the victim may have sustained twenty-two "##$ stab wounds but there is no evidence as to the manner in which the attack was made or how the stabbing resulting in her death began and developed . The existence of treachery cannot be established from mere suppositions nor drawn from circumstances that existed prior and after the killing% it must be proved

Page 6 of 6 Art 247 by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. &here treachery is not ade'uately proved! appellant can only be convicted of homicide. =8mphasis ours.> In the a"sence of treachery, appellant should "e held lia"le only for homicide under ,rticle 05$ of the Revised %enal 'ode. ?e a ree )ith the Solicitor -eneral that the a ravatin circumstance of ni httime )as not present )hen the crime )as committed. No evidence )as adduced to indicate that nocturnity )as specially sou ht "y appellant or ta*en advanta e of "y him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from capture. 38 The fact that the crime too* place at ni ht )as 2ust incidental. The miti atin circumstance of voluntary surrender should "e considered in appellant3s favor "ecause of the concurrence of the follo)in reHuisites1 =a> the offender had not actually "een arrested4 ="> the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to an a ent of a person in authority4 and =c> the surrender )as voluntary. 39 %O+ ,limpolos distinctly testified that appellant, on his o)n volition, appeared at the police station and surrendered himself shortly after he had *illed &lores. 40 (y the presence of this miti atin circumstance and there "ein no eneric a ravatin circumstance, the penalty imposa"le shall "e the minimum period of reclusion temporal. 41 ,pplyin the Indeterminate Sentence Ca), appellant shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, minimum as the minimum penalty to reclusion temporal, minimum as the maFimum penalty. ?H8R8&OR8, appellant Ser io ,maman pan is here"y found uilty "eyond reasona"le dou"t of the crime of homicide for the *illin of S%O# %lacido &lores and shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of siF =E> years and one =#> day of prision mayor minimum as minimum penalty to t)elve =#0> years and one =#> day of reclusion temporalminimum as maFimum penalty. The monetary a)ards to the heirs of S%O# %lacido &lores imposed upon appellant "y the trial court are ,&&IR:8D. 'osts a ainst appellant. SO ORD8R8D.