11/28/2016

G.R.No.167454

TodayisMonday,November28,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.167454September24,2014
EMERITUC.BARUT,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
DECISION
BERSAMIN,J.:
PetitionerEmerituC.Barut,aguardofthePhilippineNationalConstructionCorporation(PNCC),wastriedforand
foundguiltyofhomicidebytheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch276,inMuntinlupaCityunderthejudgmentrendered
on December 11, 2000, whereby he was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 10
yearsandonedayofprisionmayor,astheminimum,to17yearsandeightmonthsofreclusiontemporal,asthe
maximum,andtoindemnifytheheirsofVincentUcaginthetotalamountofP250,000.00,inclusiveoftheactual
andmoraldamages.1Onappeal,theCourtofAppeals(CA)affirmedtheconvictionofBarutthroughitsdecision
promulgatedonMarch17,2005.2
Hence,Barutnowseeksthereviewofhisconvictionbypetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Antecedents
Itappearsthatataround6:00oclockintheafternoonofSeptember24,1995SPO4VicenteUcagwascoming
fromapicnicinLagunaandreturninghometoTaguig,MetroManilaonboardapassengerjeepneydrivenbyhis
brother Rolando on the South Luzon Expressway. Ucags wife and 16 yearold son Vincent were then riding an
ownertypejeepdrivenbyRicoVillasonthesameroute.WhenthelattervehicleexitedattheSucatInterchange
aheadofUcagspassengerjeepney,PNCCguardsConradoAnchetaandBarutstoppedVillasanddirectedhim
toparkhisvehicleattheroadside.AfterinformingVillasthathisvehiclehadnoheadlights,Anchetaaskedforhis
drivinglicense,butittookawhilebeforeVillasproducedthesameapparentlywaitingforhiscompanionsinthe
passengerjeepneytoarrive.Nonetheless,Villasultimatelysurrenderedhisdrivinglicense,andAnchetaissuedto
himatrafficviolationreport(TVR)ticket.Rightaboutthen,thepassengerjeepneycarryingUcagstoppedwhere
Villasjeephadparked.UcagandDaniloFabiano,acopassenger,alightedandapproachedAnchetaandBarut
toinquirewhatthematterwas.ApprisedofthereasonforthestoppageofVillasjeep,Ucagrequestedthereturn
of Villas driving license. But Ancheta refused because hehad already issued the TVR ticket. Ucag argued with
Ancheta and Barut. Later on, however, Ucag turned around in order to avoid further argument,and simply told
Villas to return for his driving license the next day. This apparently irked Ancheta, who dared Ucag to finish the
issuerightthereandthen.Anchetasuddenlypulledouthis.38caliberrevolverandfireditseveraltimes,hitting
Ucag on both thighs. Ucag fired back and hit Ancheta. Fabiano and Villas witnessed the exchange of gunshots
betweenUcagandAncheta.3
Upon seeing the exchange of gunshots, Vincent Ucag rushed towards his father to go to his succor. Before
Vincent could reach his father, however, Barut fired at Vincent in the chest. Vincent, badly bleeding, tried to go
backtotheownertypejeepwherehismotherwas,butfelltothegroundbeforereachingthejeep.Vincentwas
rushedtotheParaaqueMedicalCenter,whereheexpiredwhileundergoingemergencysurgery.Hisfatherwas
broughttotheCampPanopioHospitalinQuezonCityfortreatmentandmedicalattendance.4
Issues
Inhispetitionforreviewoncertiorari,Barutsubmitsthat:
(a)TheCAmisapprehended,overlookedorneglectedfactsthatwerefavorabletohimand

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_167454_2014.html

1/5

11/28/2016

G.R.No.167454

(b) The finding on the supposed consistency of the testimonies of the States witnesses constituted a
sweepingconclusion.
Ruling
WefindnoreversibleerrorcommittedbytheCA.
Tostartwith,theCAheldthatitcouldnotfindfromitsreviewoftherecordsanycompellingreasontosetaside
the factual findings of the trial court. It ruled that Villas and Fabiano had clearly and consistently testified that
BaruthadbeenthepersonwhohadshotVincentandthatBarutsbaredenialoffiringatVincentdidnotprevail
overtheirpositiveandcategoricalidentificationofhimastheperpetrator.
Although the record of the trial islaid bare and open during every appeal in a criminal case, the credibility of
witnessesisafactualissuethattheCourtcannotdisturbinthisappeal.5Wereiteratethatthefindingsoffactby
thetrialcourtareaccordedgreatrespectespeciallywhenaffirmedonappealbytheCA.6Thisgreatrespectfor
suchfindingsrestsmainlyonthetrialjudgesaccesstothewitnesseswhiletheytestifyinherpresence,givingthe
trial judge the personal and direct observation of their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the
counsel for the accused, thereby enabling her to see if the witnesses werefidgeting and prevaricating, or were
sincereandtrustworthy.
Secondly, Barut adverts to the extrajudicial sworn statement that Villas gave at about 1:00 oclock in the
afternoonofSeptember25,1995barelyadayfollowingthefatalshootingofVincentinwhichhedeclarednot
havingseenBarutfireagun.BarutcontendsthatthisdeclarationdefinitelycontradictedVillascourttestimonyon
June 10, 1996, and manifested that he was "not clear and convincing because he never pointed out who [had]
really shot Vincent Ucag."7 Citing Villas answer of "Maybe he was hit" to the question on direct examination:
"What was the reason if you know why he [referring to Vincent Ucag] was weak?"8 Barut insists that Villas was
therebyambiguousandgaverisetothedoubtas"towho[had]reallyshotandkilledthevictim,"whetheritwas
Ancheta(whohadtradedshotswiththevictimsfather),orhimself.9
NotingthatneitherUcagnorAnchetahadshotVincent,theRTCexplainedthattheformercouldnotanymorefire
hisgunatVincentnotonlybecauseVincentwashisownsonbutalsobecausehehimselfhadalreadybeenlying
onthegroundafterbeinghitinhislowerextremitiesandthat
Ancheta could not have fired at Vincent at all because he, too, had been already wounded and lying on the
groundandprofusedlybleedingfromhisowngunshotwounds.TheRTCfurthernotedthattheslugextractedfrom
thebodyofVincenthadcomefroma.38caliberrevolver,notfromUcags.45caliberfirearm.
Baruts contention did not itselfgo unnoticed by the CA, which observed that the RTC could not takethe
declaration of Villas into consideration because Villas extrajudicial sworn statement containing the declaration
had not been offered and admitted as evidence by either side. The CA stressed that only evidence thatwas
formally offered and made part of the records could be considered and that in any event, the supposed
contradiction between the extrajudicial sworn statement and the court testimony should be resolved in favor of
thelatter.
The CAs negative treatment of the declaration contained in Villas extrajudicial sworn statement was inaccord
withprevailingrulesandjurisprudence.PursuanttoSection34,Rule132oftheRulesofCourt,theRTCasthe
trial court could consideronly the evidence that had been formally offered towards that end, the offering party
must specify the purpose for which the evidence was being offered. The rule would ensure the right of the
adversepartytodueprocessoflaw,for,otherwise,theadversepartywouldnotbeputinthepositiontotimely
objecttotheevidence,aswellastoproperlycountertheimpactofevidencenotformallyoffered.10 As stated in
Candidov.CourtofAppeals:11
Itissettledthatcourtswillonlyconsiderasevidencethatwhichhasbeenformallyoffered.xxx
Adocument,oranyarticleforthatmatter,isnotevidencewhenitissimplymarkedforidentificationitmustbe
formallyoffered,andtheopposingcounselgivenanopportunitytoobjecttoitorcrossexaminethewitnesscalled
upontoproveoridentifyit.Aformalofferisnecessarysincejudgesarerequiredtobasetheirfindingsoffactand
judgmentonlyandstrictlyupontheevidenceofferedbythepartiesatthetrial.Toallowapartytoattachany
document to his pleading and then expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted
consequences. The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the document and object to its
admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court
below. The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion on appeal of documentary
evidenceorexhibitsintherecordscannotbestretchedastoincludesuchpleadingsordocumentsnotofferedat
thehearingofthecase.
The rule that only evidence formally offered before the trial court can be considered is relaxed where two
requisites concur, namely: one, the evidence was duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, two, the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_167454_2014.html

2/5

11/28/2016

G.R.No.167454
12

evidencewasincorporatedintherecordsofthecase. Furthermore,therulehasnoapplicationwherethecourt
takes judicial notice of adjudicative facts pursuant to Section 2,13 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court or where the
courtreliesonjudicialadmissionsordrawsinferencesfromsuchjudicialadmissionswithinthecontextofSection
4,14 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court or where the trial court, in judging the demeanor of witnesses, determines
theircredibilityevenwithouttheofferofthedemeanorasevidence.15
TheCourtalsoseesfittocorrecttheindeterminatesentenceof10yearsandonedayofprisionmayor,asthe
minimum,to17yearsandeightmonthsofreclusiontemporal,asthemaximum,fixedbytheRTCandaffirmedby
theCA.Themaximumof17yearsandeightmonthscomesfromthemaximumperiodofreclusiontemporal,but
themaximumoftheindeterminatesentenceshouldinsteadcomefromthemediumperiodofreclusiontemporal,
whose duration is from 14 years, eight months and one day to 17 years and four months, because neither the
RTCnortheCAhadfoundtheattendanceofanyaggravatingcircumstance.Theminimumoftheindeterminate
sentence is fixed at 10 years of prision mayor, and the maximum of 17 years and eight months of reclusion
temporalismodifiedto17yearsandfourmonthsofthemediumperiodofreclusiontemporal.
Anentthecivilliability,theRTCgrantedP250,000.00withoutspecifyingtheamountscorrespondingtoactualand
moraldamages,aswellastothecivilindemnityforthedeathofVincent.TheCAaffirmedthegrant.Bothlower
courtstherebyerredonamatteroflaw.Actualandmoraldamagesaredifferentinnatureandpurpose.Tostart
with,differentlawsgoverntheirgrant,withtheamountsallowedasactualdamagesbeingdependentonproofof
thelosstoadegreeofcertainty,whiletheamountsallowedasmoraldamagesbeingdiscretionaryonthepartof
the court. Secondly, actual damages address the actual losses caused by the crime to the heirs of the victim
moraldamagesassuagethespiritualandemotionalsufferingsoftheheirsofthevictimofthecrime.Onthecivil
indemnityfordeath,lawandjurisprudencehavefixedthevaluetocompensateforthelossofhumanlife.Thirdly,
actual damages may not be granted without evidence of actual loss moral damages and death indemnity are
alwaysgrantedinhomicide,itbeingassumedbythelawthatthelossofhumanlifeabsolutelybringsmoraland
spiritual losses as well as a definite loss. Moral damages and death indemnity require neither pleading nor
evidence simply because death through crime always occasions moral sufferings on the part of the victims
heirs.16AstheCourtaptlysaidinonecase,17
xxxaviolentdeathinvariablyandnecessarilybringsaboutemotionalpainandanguishonthepartofthevictims
family. Itisinherentlyhumantosuffersorrow,torment,painandangerwhenalovedonebecomesthevictimofa
violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his
precious life, deprives them forever ofhis love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing
feelingthataninjusticehasbeendonetothem.
1 w p h i1

ThedeathindemnityandmoraldamagesarefixedatP75,000.00eachinviewofhomicidebeingagrossoffense.
Consideringthatthedecisionsofthelowercourtscontainednotreatmentoftheactualdamages,theCourtisnow
not in any position to dwell on this. Nonetheless, the Court holds that despite the lack of such treatment,
temperate damages of P25,000.00 should be allowed. Article 2224 of the Civil Codedeclares that temperate
damagesmayberecoveredwhensomepecuniarylosshasbeensufferedbutitsamountcannotbeprovedwith
certainty. There is no longer any doubt that when actual damages for burial and related expenses are not
substantiatedwithreceipts,temperatedamagesofatleastP25,000.00 are warranted, for it is certainly unfair to
denytothesurvivingheirsofthevictimthecompensationforsuchexpensesasactualdamages.18Thisisbased
onthesoundreasoningthatitwouldbeanomalousthattheheirsofthevictimwhotriedandsucceededinproving
actual damages of less than P25,000.00 would only be put in a worse situation than others who might have
presentednoreceiptsatallbutwouldstillbeentitledtoP25,000.00astemperatedamages.19
Also,inlinewithrecentjurisprudence,20theinterestfixedbytheRTCisreducedtosixpercent(6%)perannumon
alltheitemsofcivilliabilitycomputedfromthedateofthefinalityofthisjudgmentuntilfullypaid.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the conviction for homicide of petitioner EMERITU BARUT, subject to the
MODIFICATIONSthat:(a)hisindeterminatesentenceisfrom10yearsofprisionmayor,astheminimum,to17
years and four months of reclusion temporal, as the maximum (b) he shall pay to the heirs of the late Vincent
Ucag civil indemnity of P75,000.00 for his deathmoral damages of P75,000.00 and emperate damages of
~25,000.00,plusinterestofsixpercent(6%)perannumoneachoftheitemsofdamagesherebyawardedfrom
thedateoffinalityofthisjudgmentuntilfullypaidand(c)heshallpaythecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED.
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_167454_2014.html

3/5

11/28/2016

G.R.No.167454

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

Rollo,pp.3065pennedbyPresidingJudgeNormaC.Perella.

Id.at2129pennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.(retired/deceased),withtheconcurrenceof
AssociateJusticeNoelG.TijamandAssociateJusticeMaritlorP.PunzalanCastillo.
3

Id.at3133.

Id.at3435.

Bernardov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.101680,December7,1992,216SCRA224,232.

Castillov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.106472,August7,1996,260SCRA374,381.

Rollo,p.13.

Id.

Id.

10

HeirsofEmilioSantioquev.HeirsofEmilioCalma,G.R.No.160832,October27,2006,505SCRA665,
683684Pigaov.Rabanillo,G.R.No.150712,May2,2006,488SCRA546,557.
11

G.R.No.107493,February1,1996,253SCRA78,8283.

12

Peoplev.Napata,November14,1989,G.R.No.84951,179SCRA403,407Peoplev.Mate,103SCRA
484 (1981) Vda. de Oate v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 116149, November 23, 1995, 250 SCRA 283,
287.
13

Section2.Judicialnotice,whendiscretionary.Acourtmaytakejudicialnoticeofmatterswhichareof
public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
becauseoftheirjudicialfunctions.(1)
14

Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedingsinthesamecase,doesnotrequireproof.Theadmissionmaybecontradictedonlybyshowing
thatitwasmadethroughpalpablemistakeorthatnosuchadmissionwasmade.(2)
15

Section1,Rule132oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Section1.Examinationtobedoneinopencourt.Theexaminationofwitnessespresentedinatrial
or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the
witnessshallbegivenorally.(1)

16

Peoplev.Osianas,G.R.No.182548,September30,2008,567SCRA319,339340Peoplev.Buduhan,
G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 337, 367368 People v. Berondo, Jr., G.R. No. 177827,
March30,2009,582SCRA547,554555.
17

Peoplev.Panado,G.R.No.133439,December26,2000,348SCRA679,690691.

18

Peoplev.Lacaden,G.R.No.187682,November25,2009,605SCRA784,804805.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_167454_2014.html

4/5

11/28/2016

G.R.No.167454
19

Id.

20

Sisonv.People,G.R.No.187229,February22,2012,666SCRA645,667.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_167454_2014.html

5/5