G.R. No.

177751 December 14, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FLORENCIO AGACER, EDDIE AGACER, ELYNOR AGACER,
FRANLIN AGACER !"# ERIC
*
AGACER, Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, $.%
This case involves a man who was killed by his own elatives. Convicted !o the cime o! m"de by the lowe co"ts,
the indicted elatives ae now be!oe "s assailin# thei #"ilty vedict.
$act"al Antecedents
This is an appeal !om the Novembe %&, '(() Decision
%
o! the Co"t o! Appeals *CA+ in CA,-... C.,/.C. No. (%012,
a!!imin# with modi!ication the A"#"st &, '((% Decision
'
o! the .e#ional Tial Co"t, 3anch 4, Apai, Ca#ayan
which !o"nd appellants $loencio A#ace *$loencio+, $anklin A#ace *$anklin+, Elyno A#ace *Elyno+, Eic A#ace
*Eic+ and Eddie A#ace *Eddie+, #"ilty beyond easonable do"bt o! the cime o! m"de !o the killin# o! Cesaio
A#ace *Cesaio+.
As mentioned, all the appellants wee elated to Cesaio. $loencio was Cesaio5s nephew and is the !athe o!
$anklin while the bothes Elyno, Eic and Eddie ae his nephews.
On 6ach ', %777, an In!omation
2
!o 6"de was !iled a#ainst the !ive appellants, the acc"satoy potion o!
which eads as !ollows8
That on o abo"t Apil ', %774, in the m"nicipality o! Sta. Ana, 9ovince o! Ca#ayan, and within the :"isdiction ;o!<
this /onoable Co"t, the above,named acc"sed, amed with a lon# !ieam, a bow and aow, a bolo and stones,
with intent to kill, with evident pemeditation and with teachey, conspiin# to#ethe and helpin# one anothe, did
then and thee wil!"lly, "nlaw!"lly and !elonio"sly assa"lt, attack, stone and shoot one Cesaio A#ace, in!lictin#
"pon the latte ;b"ises< and m"ltiple #"nshot wo"nds in his body which ca"sed his death.
That the killin# was a##avated by the "se o! an "nlicensed !ieam.
CONT.A.= TO >A?.
1
On Octobe %1, %777, $loencio, Elyno, $anklin and Eic enteed sepaate pleas o! @not #"ilty@ d"in# thei
aai#nment.
0
On Aan"ay %%, '(((, Eddie likewise pleaded @not #"ilty@.
)
Theea!te, tial ens"ed.
Besion o! the 9osec"tion
The posec"tion5s vesion o! the events is as !ollows8
Cesaio was a 00,yea old !ame and owne o! a ice!ield sit"ated in D"n#e#, Santa Ana, Ca#ayan. On Apil ',
%774, at ao"nd 78(( a.m., he was cleain# a section o! his !am and pepain# the beddin#s !o the ice seedlin#s
intended !o the comin# plantin# season. $am laboes -enesis Delanta *-enesis+, his bothe Andy, .a!ael
6o#ado and bothes .oden *.oden+ and .ic *.ic+ Balle:o wee neaby in a sepaate section o! the same ice!ield
havestin# Cesaio5s palay.
Accodin# to posec"tion witnesses -enesis and .oden, it was at that moment while Cesaio was tendin# to his !am
when appellants s"ddenly eme#ed !om a neaby banana plantation and s"o"nded Cesaio. Bisibly intimidated,
Cesaio moved backwads and eteated to whee the othe !am laboes wee wokin#. /oweve, $anklin set
a!ie the ice staws that coveed Cesaio5s ice seedlin#s. This pompted Cesaio to et"n to p"t o"t the !ie and
save his ice seedlin#s. At this point, $anklin and Eic stated thowin# stones at Cesaio which !oced the latte
to eteat a#ain. Theea!te, $loencio, while standin# side by side with Eic, si#naled Cesaio to come close.
Cesaio obli#ed b"t when he was :"st ao"nd !ive metes away !om the #o"p, Eddie s"ddenly p"lled o"t a #"n
concealed inside a sack and, witho"t wanin#, shot Cesaio hittin# him in the le!t potion o! his chest. Almost
sim"ltaneo"sly, Elyno took aim at Cesaio with his bow and aow b"t missed his mak. As Cesaio !ell, appellants
!led towads the ii#ation canal, whee anothe #"nshot an#. Theea!te, a shot !ieam was thown !om whee
the appellants an towads the diection o! Cesaio5s !allen body. Appellants then immediately le!t the scene o! the
cime onboad a hand tacto and a ticycle.
A!te these events "n!olded, -enesis and the othe !am laboes scampeed away in di!!eent diections. -enesis
then eached 3aan#ay Capanikian and in!omed Cesaio5s son, Neldison A#ace *Neldison+, o! the death o! his
!athe. At ao"nd 28(( p.m., Cesaio5s !iends in said baan#ay went to the scene o! the cime and etieved his
copse. D"in# the a"topsy, a total o! ei#ht entance wo"nds wee !o"nd, mostly on the chest o! Cesaio5s cadave.
Accodin# to the 6edico,>e#al O!!ice, the !atal #"nshot wo"nds wee in!licted by the "se o! a !ieam capable o!
discha#in# seveal sl"#s sim"ltaneo"sly.
Besion o! the De!ense
The appellants denied the acc"sations a#ainst them and claimed that $loencio only acted in sel!,de!ense and in
de!ense o! elatives. As poo!, appellants pesented $loencio who testi!ied that on Apil ', %774, he poceeded to
D"n#e#, Sta. Ana, Ca#ayan, !om his esidence in 6ede, also in Sta. Ana, Ca#ayan, to pepae seed beddin#s in the
ice!ield ove which he and his "ncle Cesaio had an eCistin# disp"te. At ao"nd 48(( a.m., he claimed that Cesaio
attempted to pevent him !om pepain# the seed beds. ?hen $loencio pesisted and a#"ed that he inheited
the land !om his !athe, Cesaio depated tho"#h a co#onal aea. 6oments late, Cesaio et"ned and sho"ted at
him not to contin"e wokin# on the land. At that time, $loencio noticed that Cesaio was holdin# an ob:ect.
S"spectin# that Cesaio may be amed, he sho"ted to Eic, $anklin, Eddie and Elyno, who had :"st aived, to "n
away. The !o" heeded his wanin# and scampeed in di!!eent diections. Cesaio then chased $loencio who an
and :"mped into the ii#ation canal to hide in the tall co#on #asses. /oweve, Cesaio was not deteed and
contin"ed to seach !o him. ?hen $loencio saw that Cesaio was aleady close, he s"ddenly #abbed Cesaio5s
b"ckshot #"n and s"ccess!"lly disamed him. Thee"pon, Cesaio dew anothe !ieam and shot $loencio seveal
times. As Cesaio was shootin# him, $loencio also !ied the #"n he ealie #abbed !om Cesaio and hit the latte.
$indin# o"t that he too was hit in the am, he sho"ted to his nephews !o help. They esponded by takin# him to a
hospital !o teatment. On Apil %), %774, he went to the police to s"ende.
Elyno and Eddie cooboated this vesion in thei espective testimonies.
&
."lin# o! the Tial Co"t
The tial co"t !o"nd the posec"tion5s evidence s"!!icient to pove
appellants5 #"ilt beyond easonable do"bt. It held that appellants acted in conspiacy in in!lictin# "pon Cesaio, in a
teacheo"s manne, m"ltiple #"nshot wo"nds. /oweve, the tial co"t did not appeciate evident pemeditation as
a D"ali!yin# a##avatin# cic"mstance !o !ail"e to establish its elements as clealy as the ciminal act itsel!. It
also did not conside as a##avatin# cic"mstance the "se o! an "nlicensed !ieam since the !ieam "sed in the
killin# was not pesented in evidence.
The dispositive potion o! the tial co"t5s Decision
4
o! A"#"st &, '((%, eads8
?/E.E$O.E, the Co"t !inds all the acc"sed $>O.ENCIO A-ACE., EDDIE A-ACE., E>=NO. A-ACE.,
$.ANE>IN A-ACE. and E.IC A-ACE. -FI>T= beyond easonable do"bt o! the cime o! 6F.DE. D"ali!ied ;by<
teachey and heeby sentence;s< them to8
%. s"!!e the penalty o! ecl"sion pepet"a with all the accessoy penaltiesG
'. indemni!y the heis o! the victim, the amo"nt o! 9&0,(((.(( as death indemnityG the amo"nt o!
91(,(((.(( as act"al dama#es and the amo"nt o! 92(,(((.(( as and by way o! Attoney5s !ees.
2. pay the costs o! liti#ation.
SO O.DE.ED.
7
Appellants !iled a Notice o! Appeal,
%(
which was appoved by the tial co"t in its Ode
%%
o! A"#"st %&, '((%.
9"s"ant theeto, the ecods o! the case wee elevated to this Co"t. /oweve, in view o! the Co"t5s "lin# in
9eople v. 6ateo
%'
allowin# an intemediate eview by the CA whee the penalty involved is death, ecl"sion pepet"a
as in this case, o li!e impisonment, the case was tans!eed to said co"t !o appopiate action and disposition.
%2
."lin# o! the Co"t o! Appeals
The CA a!!imed the "lin# o! the tial co"t in all espects. It also awaded moal dama#es p"s"ant to the "le
laid down in 9eople v. Dela C"H
%1
and 9eople v. 9anela.
%0
The dispositive potion o! the Novembe %&, '(() Decision
%)
o! the CA eads as !ollows8
?/E.E$O.E, pemises consideed, :"d#ment is heeby endeed DEN=IN- the instant appeal, and accodin#ly
A$$I.6IN- in toto the heein imp"#ned A"#"st &, '((% Decision o! the .TC, 3anch (4, o! Apai, Ca#ayan.
Additionally, the amo"nt o! 90(,(((.(( is heeby awaded in !avo o! Cesaio A#ace5s s"vivin# heis as and by
way o! moal dama#es p"s"ant to the doctine in the cases o! Dela C"H and 9anela, as heeto!oe stated.
SO O.DE.ED.
%&
/ence, the pesent appeal.
Assi#nment o! Eos
In thei 3ie!,
%4
appellants assi#ned the !ollowin# eos8
I
T/E >O?E. COF.T E..ED IN $INDIN- T/AT CONS9I.AC= EIISTED ;A6ON-< T/E /E.EIN ACCFSED,
A99E>>ANTS IN T/E EI>>IN- O$ CESA.IO A-ACE..
II
T/E >O?E. COF.T >IEE?ISE E..ED IN $INDIN- T/AT
T.EAC/E.= AS A JFA>I$=IN- CI.CF6STANCE ATTENDED T/E CO66ISSION O$ T/E C.I6E.
III
T/E >O?E. COF.T $INA>>= E..ED IN $INDIN- T/AT T/E ACCFSED,A99E>>ANTS5 -FI>T /AS 3EEN
9.OBED 3E=OND .EASONA3>E DOF3T.
%7
Appellants contend that both lowe co"ts eed in !indin# that they conspied to kill Cesaio. They a#"e that
thee was no evidence s"!!icient to establish thei intentional paticipation in the cime to achieve a common
p"pose. Th"s, they claim that the ciminal c"lpability aisin# !om thei acts, even i! the same wee all diected
solely a#ainst one victim, is individ"al and not collective. 9"t di!!eently, each o! them is liable only !o his own
acts.
Appellants also contend that teachey did not attend the commission o! the cime. They asset that teachey
cannot be appeciated when an altecation pecedes the killin#. /ee, Cesaio aleady had a pevio"s heated
altecation with $loencio. Appellants ave that Cesaio had only himsel! to blame !o obli#in# when $loencio
s"mmoned him to come nea considein# that they :"st had a heated a#"ment. Accodin# to them, Cesaio liteally
co"ted dan#e by appoachin# $loencio instead o! "nnin# away !om him.
>astly, appellants posit that they cannot be held #"ilty o! m"de since the D"ali!yin# cic"mstance o! teachey
was not alle#ed with claity no speci!ied in the In!omation as eD"ied by Sections 4 and 7, ."le %%( o! the ."les
o! Co"t.
In its 3ie!,
'(
the 9eople o! the 9hilippines, tho"#h the O!!ice o! the Solicito -eneal *OS-+ maintains that
thee was conspiacy amon# the appellants as shown by thei collective acts be!oe, d"in#, and a!te the
pepetation o! the cime. Thei speci!ic acts ae in !act indicative o! a common desi#n and intent to ens"e the
commission o! the cime.
'%
The OS- also belies the assetion o! the appellants that teachey does not eCist in
this case. It insists that thei attack on Cesaio was s"dden and "neCpected, theeby depivin# him o! a chance to
de!end himsel! and ens"in# its commission witho"t isk to the appellants and witho"t the sli#htest povocation on
the pat o! the victim.
''
O" ."lin#
The appeal is "nmeitoio"s.
Conspiacy was s"!!iciently established
@Conspiacy eCists when two o moe pesons come to an a#eement concenin# the commission o! a !elony and
decide to commit it.@
'2
In conspiacy, it is not necessay to add"ce diect evidence o! a pevio"s a#eement to
commit a cime.
'1
It @may be shown tho"#h cic"mstantial evidence, ded"ced !om the mode and manne in which
the o!!ense was pepetated, o in!eed !om the acts o! the acc"sed themselves when s"ch lead to a :oint
p"pose and desi#n, conceted action, and comm"nity o! inteest.@
'0
9oo! o! a pevio"s a#eement and decision to
commit the cime is not essential b"t the !act that the male!actos acted in "nison p"s"ant to the same ob:ective
s"!!ices.
')
/ee, while thee is no poo! o! any pevio"s a#eement amon# appellants to commit the cime and while it was
established d"in# tial that Eddie alone shot Cesaio, the acts o! all appellants be!oe, d"in# and a!te the
incident establish the eCistence o! conspiacy to kill Cesaio beyond easonable do"bt. $ist, all o! them eme#ed
at the same time !om a banana plantation beside the ice!ield. Second, they s"pised Cesaio by immediately
s"o"ndin# him. Thid, all o! them wee amed at the time o! the incident. Eddie had a shot#"n concealed in a
sack, $loencio was amed with a bolo, Elyno had a bow and aow, while Eic and $anklin had stones in thei
hands. $o"th, Eic and $anklin st"ck Cesaio with stones moments be!oe the shootin#. $i!th, Eddie immediately
shot Cesaio at close an#e while the latte was appoachin# the #o"p o! appellants "pon bein# s"mmoned by
$loencio. SiCth, $loencio, $anklin, Eic and Elyno stood :"st a mete away !om Eddie when he shot Cesaio, b"t
did not do anythin# to stop o diss"ade Eddie !om the assa"lt. Seventh, a!te Cesaio was shot, all appellants
depated !om the scene o! the cime to#ethe.
Fndo"btedly, the acts o! the assailants constit"te poo! o! thei "nanimity in desi#n, intent and eCec"tion.
'&
They
@pe!omed speci!ic acts with closeness and coodination as to "nmistakably indicate a common p"pose and
desi#n@
'4
to ens"e the death o! Cesaio. ?e th"s "phold the lowe co"ts5 !indin# that appellants conspied to
commit the cime o! m"de a#ainst Cesaio.
/avin# established conspiacy, appellants5 assetion that each o! them can only be made liable !o his own acts
deseves no meit. Evidence as to who amon# the appellants deliveed the !atal blow is thee!oe no lon#e
indispensable since in conspiacy, a peson may be convicted !o the ciminal act o! anothe.
'7
In a conspiacy, the
act o! one is deemed the act o! all.
2(
Essence o! TeacheyG Elements
?e ae also "nimpessed with appellants5 contention that both the tial and appellate co"ts eed in "lin# that
teachey D"ali!ied the killin# o! Cesaio to m"de. They maintain that since the attack on Cesaio was !ontal,
thee was thee!oe no element o! s"pise on the victim o s"ddenness o! the assa"lt that chaacteiHes
teachey.
@Thee is teachey when the o!!ende commits any o! the cimes a#ainst the peson, employin# means, methods o
!oms in the eCec"tion theeo! which tend diectly and specially to ins"e its eCec"tion, witho"t isk to himsel!
aisin# !om any de!ense which the o!!ended paty mi#ht make.@
2%
Two conditions m"st conc" !o teachey to be
appeciated. $ist, is the employment o! means o! eCec"tion that #ives the peson attacked no oppot"nity to
de!end himsel! o to etaliate. Second, the means o! eCec"tion was delibeate o conscio"sly adopted.
2'
@The
essence o! teachey is the s"dden attack by an a##esso witho"t the sli#htest povocation on the pat o! the
victim, depivin# the latte o! any eal chance to de!end himsel!, theeby ens"in# the commission o! the cime
witho"t isk to the a##esso.@
22
In this case, teachey is evident !om the same cic"mstances we have aleady disc"ssed above. $om the !acts,
Cesaio co"ld not have been awae that he wo"ld be s"o"nded, attacked and killed by the appellants who wee all
elated to him. /e co"ld not have also been awae that Eddie had a shot#"n concealed in a sack beca"se i! he was,
he wo"ld not have cas"ally appoached $loencio when the latte s"mmoned him. Fn!ot"nately, while Cesaio was
advancin# towads $loencio, Eddie shot him at close an#e witho"t any wanin# whatsoeve. Evidently, the cime
was committed in a manne that thee was no oppot"nity !o Cesaio to de!end himsel!. Also, the mode o! attack
did not spin# !om the "neCpected t"n o! events b"t was clealy tho"#ht o! by the appellants. /ence, it no lon#e
mattes that the assa"lt was !ontal since its swi!tness and "neCpectedness depived Cesaio o! a chance to epel
it o o!!e any esistance in de!ense o! his peson.
21
Appellants5 contention that teachey was not alle#ed with cetainty in the In!omation is also devoid o! meit. In
9eople v. Billacota
20
the Co"t appeciated teachey as an a##avatin# cic"mstance, it havin# been alle#ed in the
In!omation and poved d"in# tial that the @C C C acc"sed, amed with a shapened bamboo stick, with intent to
kill, teachey and evident pemeditation, did then and thee will!"lly and !elonio"sly attack, assa"lt and stab with
the said weapon one DANI>O SA>BADO. C.FK C C C.@
Similaly, we hold that teachey was s"!!iciently alle#ed in the In!omation when it eads, viH8
C C C the above,name;d< acc"sed, amed with a lon# !ieam, a bow and aow, a bolo and stones, with intent to kill,
with evident pemeditation and with teachey, conspiin# to#ethe and helpin# one anothe, did then and thee
will!"lly, "nlaw!"lly and !elonio"sly assa"lt, attack, stone and shoot one Cesaio A#ace, in!lictin# "pon the latte
;b"ises< and m"ltiple #"nshot wo"nds in his body which ca"sed his death.
2)
*Emphasis s"pplied.+
@?ell,settled is the "le that when C C C teachey C C C is pesent and alle#ed in the In!omation, it D"ali!ies the
killin# and aises it to the cate#oy o! m"de.@
2&
Appellants !ailed to discha#e thei b"den to pove $loencio5s claim that he acted in sel!,de!ense and in de!ense
o! elatives.
$loencio admits that he shot Cesaio b"t invokes de!ense o! himsel! and o! his elatives to escape ciminal
liability.
The Co"t is not convinced.
?hile it is the b"den o! the posec"tion to establish the #"ilt o! the acc"sed beyond easonable do"bt, this
b"den shi!ts when the acc"sed admits the killin# and pleads sel!,de!ense by way o! :"sti!ication. It thee!oe
becomes vital !o the acc"sed to show clea and convincin# evidence that he acted in sel!,de!ense. In so doin#, he
m"st ely on the sten#th o! his own evidence and not on the weakness o! the posec"tion5s evidence.
24
The acc"sed m"st also pove the !ollowin# elements o! sel!,de!ense8 *%+ thee was "nlaw!"l a##ession on the pat
o! the victimG *'+ thee was easonable necessity o! the means employed to pevent o epel the attackG and *2+ the
lack o! s"!!icient povocation on the pat o! the peson de!endin# himsel!.
27
In the :"sti!yin# cic"mstance o! sel!,
de!ense, "nlaw!"l a##ession is a condition sine D"a non.
1(
Sel!,de!ense, complete o incomplete, cannot be
consideed a :"sti!ication, "nless the victim commits an "nlaw!"l a##ession a#ainst the peson de!endin# himsel!.
1%
/ee, $loencio !ailed to pove that he de!ended himsel! a#ainst the "nlaw!"l a##ession o! Cesaio. /e !ailed to
pesent any evidence to s"bstantiate his claim that thee was an act"al o imminent peil to his li!e o limb. Aside
!om his "neliable and sel!,sevin# claim, thee is no poo! that Cesaio assa"lted and shot him with a !ieam
d"in# thei st"##le o, i! at all, that thee was indeed a st"##le between them. On the othe hand, the sepaate
testimonies o! posec"tion witnesses -enesis and .oden ne#ate $loencio5s claim o! "nlaw!"l a##ession. The
testimonies o! these witnesses established that it was the appellants who eme#ed !om a neaby banana
plantationG that they s"o"nded Cesaio and set to !ie the ice staws covein# his ice seedlin#sG that appellants
wee amed with di!!eent kinds o! weapons, while Cesaio was notG that $anklin and Elyno cast stones "pon
CesaioG and, that the one who p"lled a #"n !om a sack and shot Cesaio was Eddie, not $loencio. ?e th"s hold
that i! thee was "nlaw!"l a##ession hee, it came !om appellants5 end and not !om Cesaio. /ence, thee bein#
no "nlaw!"l a##ession on the pat o! Cesaio, $loencio5s claim o! sel!,de!ense m"st !ail.
Anothe basis !o appellants5 conviction is the !indin# o! the medico,le#al eCpet that the ca"se o! Cesaio5s death
was m"ltiple #"nshot wo"nds !o"nd mostly at the @in!eo,lateal potion o! the anteio chest, i#ht side.@ This
cooboates the testimonies o! -enesis and .oden that Cesaio was shot in his chest. These dovetailin# !indin#s
o! the medico,le#al eCpet and the eyewitness acco"nts o! -enesis and .oden also deseve moe cedence than the
"ns"bstantiated claim o! sel!,de!ense o! $loencio, who, inteestin#ly, #ave contadictoy testimony. $loencio
claimed that he co"ld not see the #"n "sed by Cesaio in shootin# him as tall co#onal #ass obst"cted his view, yet
he co"ld clealy ecall that he saw the b"llet,iddled Cesaio !all.
1'
These contadictoy statements o! $loencio all
the moe convince "s to believe the testimonies o! posec"tion witnesses that no eCchan#e o! #"n!ie act"ally
tanspied between Cesaio and $loencio. .athe, it was only Eddie who wielded a #"n and shot Cesaio.%avvphi%
$loencio also invokes the :"sti!yin# cic"mstance o! de!ense o! elatives, which has thee elements, to wit, *%+
thee was "nlaw!"l a##ession on the pat o! the victimG *'+ thee was easonable necessity o! the means employed
to pevent o epel itG and *2+ in case o! povocation #iven by the peson bein# attacked, the peson makin# de!ense
had no pat theein.
12
>ike in the case o! sel!,de!ense, "nlaw!"l a##ession is also an indispensable element in
de!ense o! elative. As disc"ssed, thee is no "nlaw!"l a##ession on the pat o! Cesaio. /ence, $loencio5s
eliance on this :"sti!yin# cic"mstance is likewise "navailin#.
Similaly, $loencio5s s"bseD"ent pesentation o! himsel! at the police station cannot be consideed as a @vol"ntay
s"ende@ which wo"ld miti#ate the penalty imposed. @A s"ende to be vol"ntay m"st be spontaneo"s, showin#
the intent o! the acc"sed to s"bmit himsel! "nconditionally to the a"thoities eithe beca"se *a+ he acknowled#es
his #"ilt o *b+ he wishes to save them the to"ble and eCpense necessaily inc"ed in his seach and capt"e.@
11
/ee, $loencio cannot be consideed to have s"endeed vol"ntaily since his act did not emanate !om a nat"al
imp"lse to admit the killin# o! Cesaio o to save the police o!!ices the e!!ot and eCpense that wo"ld be inc"ed
in his seach and incaceation. Altho"#h he s"bmitted a medico,le#al ceti!icate p"potedly to show that his
in:"ies pevented him !om immediately s"endein# to the a"thoities, same, howeve, does not ceti!y as to the
peiod o! his incapacity o the peiod d"in# which he eD"ied medical attendance. Th"s, thee can be no
eCplanation why he s"endeed only on Apil %), %774 o %1 days a!te the commission o! the cime. To "s,
$loencio5s s"ende was a mee a!tetho"#ht "ndesevin# o! any consideation. Indeed, the !ail"e o! $loencio
to immediately s"ende militates a#ainst his claim that he killed Cesaio in sel!,de!ense and in de!ense o!
elatives since an innocent peson will not hesitate to take the pompt and necessay action to eConeate himsel!
o! the cime imp"ted to him.
All told, we !ind no eason to dist"b the concl"sion o! the tial co"t, as a!!imed by the CA. The testimonies o!
the eyewitnesses pesented by the posec"tion wee #iven in a clea, nat"al and spontaneo"s manne. Thei
positive identi!ication o! the appellants as the pesons esponsible !o the death o! Cesaio has been clealy,
cate#oically and consistently established on ecod. 6oeove, we note that no evidence was pesented to
establish that these eyewitnesses haboed any ill,will a#ainst the appellants o that they have easons to
!abicate thei testimonies.
10
These kinds o! testimonies ae accepted as t"e !o bein# consistent with the
nat"al ode o! events, h"man nat"e and the pes"mption o! #ood !aith.
1)
The 9ope 9enalty
Fnde Aticle '14 o! the .evised 9enal Code, the penalty !o the cime o! m"de is ecl"sion pepet"a to death.
As coectly imposed by the tial co"t and as a!!imed by the CA, appellants m"st s"!!e the pison tem o!
ecl"sion pepet"a, the lowe o! the said two indivisible penalties, d"e to the absence o! an a##avatin#
cic"mstance attendin# the commission o! the cime.
The Civil >iability
$o the victim5s death es"ltin# !om the cime, the heis ae entitled to the !ollowin# awads8 *%+ civil indemnity
eC delicto !o the death o! the victimG *'+ act"al o compensatoy dama#esG *2+ moal dama#esG *1+ eCemplay
dama#esG and *0+ tempeate dama#es.
1&
Civil indemnity in the amo"nt o! 9&0,(((.(( is mandatoy and is #anted witho"t need o! evidence othe than the
commission o! the cime.
14
6oal dama#es in the s"m o! 90(,(((.(( shall be awaded despite the absence o! poo!
o! mental and emotional s"!!ein# o! the victim5s heis.
17
@As bone o"t by h"man nat"e and eCpeience, a violent
death invaiably and necessaily bin#s abo"t emotional pain and an#"ish on the pat o! the victim5s !amily.@
0(
Also
"nde Aticle ''2( o! the Civil Code, eCemplay dama#es may be imposed when the cime was committed with one
o moe a##avatin# cic"mstances, like teachey,
0%
as in this case. Th"s, the awad o! 92(,(((.(( !o eCemplay
dama#es is in ode.
0'
As e#ads act"al dama#es, the son o! Cesaio, Neldison, testi!ied that the s"m o! 91(,(((.(( was spent !o the
co!!in o! his !athe b"t was "nable to pesent eceipts to s"bstantiate s"ch claim. ?hee the amo"nt o! act"al
dama#es !o !"neal eCpenses cannot be ascetained d"e to the absence o! eceipts to pove them, tempeate
dama#es in the s"m o! 9'0,(((.(( may be #anted, as it is heeby #anted, in lie" theeo!.
02
@Fnde Aticle '''1
o! the Civil Code, tempeate dama#es may be ecoveed as it cannot be denied that the heis o! the victim
s"!!eed pec"niay loss altho"#h the eCact amo"nt was not poved.@
01
The heis o! Cesaio ae also entitled to an inteest on all the amo"nts o! dama#es we have awaded at the le#al
ate o! )L !om the date o! !inality o! this Decision "ntil !"lly paid.
00
?/E.E$O.E, the Co"t A$$I.6S the Novembe %&, '(() Decision o! the Co"t o! Appeals in CA,-... C.,/.C. No.
(%012 which a!!imed the A"#"st &, '((% Decision o! the .e#ional Tial Co"t, 3anch 4, Apai, Ca#ayan, !indin#
appellants $loencio, $anklin, Elyno, Eddie and Eic, all s"named A#ace, #"ilty beyond easonable do"bt o! the
cime o! m"de, with the !ollowin# modi!ications8
*%+ act"al dama#es is DE>ETEDG
*'+ the appellants ae O.DE.ED to pay the heis o! Cesaio A#ace 9'0,(((.(( as tempeate dama#esG and
*2+ the appellants ae O.DE.ED to pay the heis o! Cesaio A#ace inteest at the le#al ate o! siC
pecent *)L+ pe ann"m on all the amo"nts o! dama#es awaded, commencin# !om the date o! !inality o!
this Decision "ntil !"lly paid.
Costs a#ainst the appellants.
SO O.DE.ED.
&ARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate A"stice