Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 38
Maddela, Quirino
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

CRIM. CASE NO. 38-348

FOR: PARRICIDE

ALFREDO ANDAYA,
Accused.
X------------------------------------------------------X

D E C I S I O N
The Charge
Accused-Alfredo Andaya was charged with parricide in an information
dated November 4, 2009, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about 11:30 oclock in the evening of August 20,
2009, at the Public Market of Maddela, Poblacion Sur, Maddela,
Quirino, Philippines and within the preliminary jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused with intent to kill did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly stab with the use of a
knife Josie Andaya hitting her on the different parts of her body, the
latter being his legitimate wife, thereby inflicting upon her fatal
wounds which caused his death shortly thereafter.
The accused was arrested on November 8, 2009 and when arraigned on
November 11, 2009, he pleaded not guilty as charged with the assistance of Atty.
Meliton C. Galia of the Public Attorneys Office.
During the pre-trial on June 2, 2010, the parties stipulated on the following
matters: 1] The lawful relationship of the parties as husband and wife; 2] Their
union was blessed with five (5) children; and 3] The fact of death of Josie Andaya
(pp. 39 to 43 - Record).
Evidence of the Prosecution
Trial ensued on July 21, 2010 and other dates where Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Alfredo A. Balajo, Jr. presented the following witnesses:
RACQUEL AGAPEN, of legal age and a restaurant owner testified that at
dusk of August 20, 2009, she and her husband (Wilfredo Bolhayon), including
their lone helper (Joy Andaya) were at their restaurant near the lagoon at
Poblacion Sur, Maddela, Quirino. Alfredo Andaya, Joys husband who was
intoxicated, arrived. Wilfredo and Alfredo then drunk one bottle of gin, which
lasted until 10:30 P.M. Thereafter, they all left the restaurant to eat lugaw at the
highway. Subsequently, they returned to their restaurant at around 11:00 P.M. to

DECISION

[2/6]

CRIM. CASE NO. 38-348

sleep. The witness and her live-in partner slept at the kitchen, while Joy and
Alfredo where on top of a large serving table. There is a walling between them.
Shortly, the Bolhayons heard a commotion and Wilfredo stood up to verify, with
Racquel in tow. Racquel saw Alfredo pressing his wife to the wall and Joy had a
stab wound. Alfredo pulled out a 14 inches knife from Joys chest near the armpit
and he told them that he will kill them all. Wilfredo backed off and pulled a table
to block the accused, but the latter was still able to injure the formers right
shoulder. Racquel screamed and because of this, the accused left the restaurant.
She reported the incident to a certain Police Officer Dela Cruz of the Maddela
Police Station and immediately, policemen went with her to the restaurant. They
saw the victim being cradled by the accused who was uttering, If you will die, I
will also kill myself. The accused also stabbed himself in the abdomen. The
victim, the accused and Wilfredo Bolhayon were all brought to the hospital for
treatment but on the way thereto, the victim expired. In the course of her
testimony, Racquel identified her sworn statement (Exhibit B) and also the
accused.
On cross-examination, the witness clarified that Joy and Josie are one and
the same person. She also recalled that the accused arrived at the restaurant with
Rey Nicolas who drank with them for a while and then left. Rey did not sleep at
the restaurant with them.
WILFREDO BOLHAYON, of legal age, testified that in the evening of
August 20, 2009, he was at his bar cum restaurant (RWW) which was being
managed by his then live-in partner, Racquel Agapen. At past 9 P.M., Alfredo
Andaya came with one Rey Nicolas and they had a drinking spree. Racquel and
Josie Andaya served them with Red Horse beer. Thereafter, the witness and
Racquel together with Alfredo and Josie went to the highway to eat lugaw. Rey
was left behind because he fell asleep after drinking beer. When they returned to
his restaurant, they all went to sleep. He woke up with his live-in partner when
they heard a scream and they saw Alfredo stabbing his wife, Josie. At this
juncture, he tried holding Alfredo, but the latter stabbed him on the shoulder
forcing him to retreat. His live-in partner screamed and the accused went out. Rey
Nicolas was awaken by the noise and he ran away. The witness and his live-in
partner went to the police station to report the incident. Policemen came with
them to their restaurant where they saw the accused holding his wife. When the
authorities were about to arrest him, the accused stabbed himself in the abdomen
saying, I will also commit suicide because I stabbed my wife to death. The
accused even pulled out his intestine. They were brought to the hospital, but Josie
died on the way thereto. The witness identified the accused in open court in the
course of his testimony.
On cross-examination, the witness testified that he did not turn off the lights
at the dining area when he slept and it was lighted all thru out that night.
ABE NICOLAS, 60 years old and a resident of Muyudan, Manglad,
Maddela, Quirino, testified that he is the father of the victim Josie NicolasAndaya. His daughter died on August 20, 2009 and it was his nephew, Rolly
Leao, who informed him about her death. They went to the Diduyon Hospital
and there they saw his daughter already dead. They brought the cadaver to an

DECISION

[3/6]

CRIM. CASE NO. 38-348

embalmer after which, they took her home to Muyudan. They made the casket
themselves. His daughters wake lasted for 4 days and 4 nights. They then buried
her at the municipal cemetery. All in all, they actually spent around P26,000.00.
He was emotionally in pain for what happened to his daughter. His wife even
fainted because of what happened to their child. Josie had 4 minor children and
they are all living with the witness and his wife. He said that what they need is
justice for his daughter.
On August 24, 2011, APP Balajo, Jr. rested their case with three witnesses
and several pieces of documentary evidence consisting of Exhibits A to A-2 Sworn Statement of Abe Nicolas, B to B-3 - Sworn Statement of Raquel
Agapen, C - Certificate of Marriage between the accused and the victim, D Death Certificate of the victim, and D-1 - Autopsy Report of Dr. Melanio Lazaro
on Josie Andaya.
Evidence of the Defense
On January 18, 2012, Atty. Neil Anthony L. Sugue of the Public Attorneys
Office presented the accused himself as their only witness:
ALFREDO ANDAYA, of legal age and married, testified that at around 9
P.M. of August 20, 2009, he was at the stall of Racquel Agapen beside the lagoon
at Poblacion Sur, Maddela, Quirino. He had a drinking spree with one Rey
Nicolas. The other persons thereat were his wife Josie, Wilfredo Bolhayon, and
Racquel Agapen. Their drinking session lasted for an hour and at 10 P.M., he went
out with his wife together with Wilfredo and Racquel to eat arozcaldo at the
highway. Rey Nicolas was left at the stall because he fell asleep. After eating,
they went back to the stall and prepared themselves to sleep. He slept with his wife
on top of a table inside the restaurant, while Wilfredo and Racquel stayed in the
kitchen. Rey slept 3 meters away from them. While already asleep, he was
awakened by his wifes scream. He woke up and saw her on the floor bloodied.
He went to her and embraced her. Their other companions were also awaken.
Wilfredo and Racquel went out and returned in the company of policemen. Rey
also went out, but did not return to the place anymore. He denied having inflicted
the wounds on his wife. Neither is he aware of who did that to her. On crossexamination, he said that he saw a knife near his wife and he picked it up. Worried
about what has happened to her, he tried to kill himself with the knife.
Issues
The issues for resolution here are these: 1] Whether or not the accused is
guilty as charged; 2] Whether or not the heirs of the deceased are entitled to
damages; and 3] Whether or not the defense of denial can be credited for the
accused.
Discussion
The elements of parricide are the following: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other

DECISION

[4/6]

CRIM. CASE NO. 38-348

descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused. The key element in parricide is

the relationship of the offender with the victim. (PP v. Dionisio Calonge y
Verana, G.R. No. 182793, July 5, 2010).
After a careful evaluation of the pieces of evidence on hand, the court finds
that the prosecution has established the presence of the above elements.
The first and third elements have already been stipulated during the pre-trial
because the fact of death of Josie Andaya and her marriage to the accused were
both admitted by the contending parties. This is already in the nature of a judicial
admission which requires no further proof pursuant to Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence. This, notwithstanding, the prosecution still offered in
evidence the following documents: Exhibits D - Josie Andayas Certificate of
Death (Exhibit D), D-1 - Autopsy Report, and C - Certificate of Marriage.
Thus, there is here an overwhelming evidence on the existence of these elements.
The second element refers to the identity of the culprit and the prosecutions
evidence pointing to herein accused as the culprit also meets the test of moral
certainty. The star witnesses for the prosecution are Racquel Agapen, the operator
of the restaurant where Josie Andaya was employed, and Wilfredo Bolhayon, her
live-in partner. Their declarations on the circumstances surrounding the
commission of the crime were almost confirmed by the accused himself, except
their incriminating statements that he is the culprit. Specifically, Raquel asserted
that she saw the accused pulled out a knife from Josies chest near her armpit
(TSN dated July 21, 2010, pp. 39-40), while Wilfredo declared that he saw the
accused stabbing his wife (TSN dated April 13, 2011, p. 86). In fact, in
Wilfredos effort to prevent the accused from harming his wife, the latter even
stabbed him in the left shoulder (Id., p. 88).
The court does not doubt the positive identification of the herein accused by
the two prosecution witnesses because at the time of the incident, they were near
each other and the dining area of the restaurant where the incident happened was
lighted (TSN dated April 13, 2011, pp. 94-95), not to mention their familiarity
with one another.
Of added significance in the conviction of the accused is his attempt to
commit suicide by stabbing his abdomen and even pulling out his intestines. Such
suicidal action of the accused is an evidence of guilt because this indicates that he
was extremely bothered by his conscience on what he did to his wife. Although the
accused denied killing his wife pointing to another person as the culprit and
explaining that he attempted to kill himself because he was worried as to the fate
of her injured wife, the court is not ready to accept such declaration as gospel
truth. This is so because such is not in accord with human nature. Remember that
accused has four minor children to support and if, indeed, he is not the culprit, he
should not kill himself because doing so will create more problems to the already
pitiful situation of his children and also in seeking justice for his deceased wife.
The truth of the matter is that he felt so remorseful in seeing the lifeless body of
his wife and in alleviating his grief, the only solution left for him is to commit
suicide.

DECISION

[5/6]

CRIM. CASE NO. 38-348

Equally important is the spontaneous confession of the accused because

according to Wilfredo, when they returned to their stall together with policemen
who are supposed to arrest the accused, he heard the accused uttered - I will also
commit suicide because I stabbed my wife (TSN dated April 13, 2011, p. 89).
Such statement is admissible against the accused in line with the following ruling
of the Supreme Court in the case of PP v. Victor Villarino y Mabute, G.R. No.
185012, March 5, 2010:
The confession was spontaneously made and not elicited
through questioning. The trial court did not, therefore, err in
holding that compliance with the constitutional procedure on
custodial interrogation is not applicable in the instant case.
xxx The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of
the offense charged may be given in evidence against him
(Sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court). It may in a sense be also
regarded as part of the res gestae. The rule is that, any person,
otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession,
is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if
he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not
be repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must be given in
substance.
Anent the issue on damages, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to
prove that the relatives of the deceased, indeed, spent P26,000.00 in relation to the
death of Josie Andaya. However, this does not mean that they cannot claim any.
They are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in line with
the following ruling of the Supreme Court in PP v. Villanueva, 456 Phil. 14, 29
[2003], which was reiterated in PP v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196 August 6,
2008:
When actual damages proven by receipts during the trial
amount to less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate
damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of the actual
damages of lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of
actual damages proven exceeds P25,000.00, then temperate
damages may no longer be awarded. Actual damages based
on the receipts presented during the trial should instead be
granted.
Recent jurisprudence pegs civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00
which is automatically granted to the offended party, or his/her heirs in case of the
former's death, without need of further evidence other than the fact of the
commission of murder, homicide, parricide and rape. People v. Regalario has
explained that the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the
death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the
imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. (PP v.
Honorio Tibon y Deiso, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010)
Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is also proper. Even in the
absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering, it has been

DECISION

[6]

CRIM. CASE NO. 38-348

recognized that the loss of a loved one to a violent death brings emotional pain and
anguish (Id., Tibon Case).
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the trial court should have made
accused-appellant account for PhP30,000 as exemplary damages on account of
relationship, a qualifying circumstance, which was alleged and proved, in the
crime of parricide (Id., Tibon Case).
Against the categorical testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses, accused
can only offer his uncorroborated defense of denial. Unfortunately, it cannot be
given any weight because it is, inherently, a weak defense and cannot prevail over
the positive identification of credible eyewitnesses, one of whom (Wilfredo) even
showed the scar on his left shoulder as a result of the stabbing he got from the
accused when he tried to pacify him (TSN dated April 13, 2011, p. 88).
Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for parricide is composed of two (2)
indivisible penalties, reclusin perpetua to death. In the present case, since there is
no aggravating circumstance alleged and proven, the penalty shall only be
reclusin perpetua.
All told, the prosecution has carried out its burden of proving the guilt of
the accused with moral certainty.
Fallo
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
Alfredo Andaya GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of parricide and sentences
him to suffer the penalty of reclusin perpetua. However, his preventive
imprisonment shall be fully credited to him in the service of his sentence pursuant
to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Accused is ordered to pay the heirs of Josie Nicolas Andaya the amount of:
1] P25,000.00 as temperate damages; 2] P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; 3]
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and 4] P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with
interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.
With the category of the accused as a national prisoner, the Clerk of Court
is directed to prepare the corresponding mittimus or commitment order for his
transfer to the Bureau of Corrections and Penology, Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED.
Maddela, Quirino, July 23, 2012.

MENRADO V. CORPUZ
Executive Judge