5/25/2017 G.R.No.

177743

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION


PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, G.R.No.177743
PlaintiffAppellee,
Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,

LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
*PEREZ,JJ.


ALFONSOFONTANILLA
Promulgated:
yOBALDO,

AccusedAppellant.
January25,2012
xx

DECISION


BERSAMIN,J.:

Anindispensablerequisiteofselfdefenseisthatthevictimmusthavemountedanunlawful
aggressionagainsttheaccused.Withoutsuchunlawfulaggression,theaccusedcannotinvokeself
defenseasajustifyingcircumstance.

TheaccusedpraysforthereviewandreversalofthedecisionpromulgatedonJune29,2006,
[1]
whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction for murder handed down by the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch34,inBalaoan,LaUnion.

Antecedents

Ataround9:30p.m.onOctober29,1996,JoseOlaiswaswalkingalongtheprovincialroad
inButubutOeste,Balaoan,LaUnionwhenAlfonsoFontanillasuddenlystruckhimintheheadwith
[2]
apieceofwoodcalledbellang. Olaisfellfacedowntotheground,butFontanillahithimagainin
theheadwithapieceofstone.FontanilladesistedfromhittingOlaisathirdtimeonlybecauseJoel

Marquez and Tirso Abunan, the sonsinlaw of Olais, shouted at him, causing him to run away.
Marquez and Abunan rushed their fatherinlaw to a medical clinic, where Olais was pronounced
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 1/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
Marquez and Abunan rushed their fatherinlaw to a medical clinic, where Olais was pronounced
[3]
deadonarrival.

OnApril25,1997,theOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorofLaUnionfiledaninformation
formurderagainstFontanillaintheRTC,viz:

Thatonoraboutthe29thdayofOctober1996,alongtheProvincialRoadatBarangayButubut
Oeste,MunicipalityofBalaoan,ProvinceofLaUnion,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthis
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and
treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strike with a
longcoconutnightstickandthereafterhitwithastonetheheadofJoseOlais,therebyinflictingon
thelatterheadwoundswhichcausedthedeathofthelatter,tothedamageandprejudiceoftheheirs
ofsaidvictim.

[4]
CONTRARYTOLAW .

Theaccusedpleadednotguilty.

TheStatepresentedMarquezandAbunanasitswitnesses.Theyclaimedthattheywereonlyseveral
meters away from Olais when Fontanilla struck him that they shouted at Fontanilla, who fled
because of them and that they were able to see and to identify Fontanilla as the attacker of their
[5]
fatherinlawbecausetheareawasthenwelllighted.

Dr.FelicidadLeda,thephysicianwhoconductedtheautopsyonthecadaverofOlais,attestedthat
herpostmortemexaminationshowedthatOlaishadsufferedafractureonthelefttemporalareaof
theskull,causinghisdeath.Sheopinedthatahardobjectorasevereforcehadhittheskullofthe
victimmorethanonce,consideringthattheskullhadbeenalreadyfragmentedandthefractureson
[6]
theskullhadbeenradiating.
SPO1 Abraham Valdez, who investigated the slaying and apprehended Fontanilla, declared
that he had gone looking for Fontanilla in his house along with other policemen that Fontanillas
father had denied that he was around that their search of the house had led to the arrest of
[7]
Fontanillainsideandthattheyhadthenbroughthimtothepolicestation. Valdezfurtherdeclared
[8]
thatFontanillaassertedthathewouldonlyspeakincourt.

Atthetrial,Fontanillaclaimedselfdefense.Hesaidthatonthenightoftheincident,hehad
been standing on the road near his house when Olais, wielding a nightstick and appearing to be

drunk,hadboxedhiminthestomachthatalthoughhehadthentalkedtoOlaisnicely,thelatterhad
continuedhittinghimwithhisfists,strikinghimwithstraightblowsthatOlais,akarateexpert,had
alsokickedhimwithbothhislegsthathehadthusbeenforcedtodefendhimselfbypickingupa
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 2/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
alsokickedhimwithbothhislegsthathehadthusbeenforcedtodefendhimselfbypickingupa
stonewithwhichhehadhittherightsideofthevictimshead,causingthelattertofallfacedownto
thegroundandthathehadthenleftthesceneforhishouseuponseeingthatOlaiswasnolonger
[9]
moving.

[10]
FontanillasdaughterMariloucorroboratedherfathersversion.

OnJune21,2001,theRTCdeclaredFontanillaguiltyascharged,anddisposedthusly:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment declaring he
accused ALFONSO FONTANILLA Y OBALDO @ Carlos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimeofMURDERasdefinedandpenalizedinArt.248oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedby
Republic Act No. 7659, Sec. 6, and thereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUATODEATHandtoindemnifytheheirsofthevictimintheamountofFiftyThousand
Pesos(P50,000.00).

[11]
SOORDERED.

The RTC rejected Fontanillas plea of selfdefense by observing that he had no necessity to
[12]
employ a big stone, inflicting upon the victim a mortal wound causing his death due to the
victimattackinghimonlywithbarehands.ItnotedthatFontanilladidnotsufferanyinjurydespite
his claim that the victim had mauled him that Fontanilla did not receive any treatment, and no
medicalcertificateattestedtoanyinjuryhemighthavesuffered,havingbeenimmediatelyreleased
[13]
fromthehospital thatFontanillasfailuretogiveanystatementatthetimehesurrenderedtothe
[14]
policewasinconsistentwithhispleaofselfdefense andthatthemannerofattackagainstOlais
[15]
establishedtheattendanceoftreachery.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC, holding that Fontanilla did not establish the indispensable
element of unlawful aggression that his failure to report the incident to the police at the earliest
opportunity,orevenafterhewastakenintocustody,negatedthepleaofselfdefenseandthatthe
natureofthevictimsinjurywasasignificantphysicalprooftoshowadeterminedeffortonthepart
[16]
ofFontanillatokillhim,andnotjusttodefendhimself.

The CA ruled that treachery was attendant, because Olais had no inkling that a fatal blow was
loominguponhim,andbecauseFontanillawasinconspicuouslyhiddenfromviewwhenhestruck
[17]
Olaisfrombehind,renderingOlaisunabletoretaliate.
Nonetheless,theCArectifiedthepenaltyfromreclusionperpetuatodeathtoonlyreclusion
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 3/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
Nonetheless,theCArectifiedthepenaltyfromreclusionperpetuatodeathtoonlyreclusion
perpetuauponnotingtheabsenceofanyaggravatingormitigatingcircumstance,anddisposedas
follows:
INVIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed decisionof the Regional Trial Court of
Balaoan, La Union, Branch 34, in Criminal Case No. 2561 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that appellant Fontanilla is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.Nocost.

[18]
SOORDERED.

Theaccusedisnowappealing,insistingthattheCAerredbecause:

I.
THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINIGNORINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTSCLAIM
OFSELFDEFENSE.

II.
EVENGRANTINGTHATACCUSEDAPPELLANTKILLEDTHEVICTIM,THETRIALCOURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF
MURDERWHENTHEQUALIFYINGCIRCUMSTANCEOFTREACHERYWASNOTPROVEN
BEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

III.
FURTHERMORE, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE
SPECIALPRIVILEGE[D]MITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCEOFINCOMPLETESELFDEFENSE
ANDTHEMITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCEOFVOLUNTARYSURRENDER.



Ruling


Weaffirmtheconviction.


Fontanillapleadedselfdefense.Inorderforselfdefensetobeappreciated,hehadtoprove
byclearandconvincingevidencethefollowingelements:(a)unlawfulaggressiononthepartofthe
victim (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and (c) lack of
[19]
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is the
indispensable element of selfdefense, for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is

[20]
established,selfdefenseisunavailing,forthereisnothingtorepel. Thecharacteroftheelement
ofunlawfulaggressionisaptlyexplainedasfollows:

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying
circumstanceofselfdefense.Withoutunlawfulaggression,therecanbenojustifiedkillingindefense
ofoneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 4/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
ofoneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the
aggressionfromthevictimputinrealperilthelifeorpersonalsafetyofthepersondefendinghimself
the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the
concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or
materialattackorassault(b)theattackorassaultmustbeactual,or,atleast,imminentand(c)the
attackorassaultmustbeunlawful.

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression and (b)
imminentunlawfulaggression.Actualormaterialunlawfulaggressionmeansanattackwithphysical
forceorwithaweapon,anoffensiveactthatpositivelydeterminestheintentoftheaggressortocause
the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but
must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or
openingaknifeandmakingamotionasiftoattack).Imminentunlawfulaggressionmustnotbea
merethreateningattitudeofthevictim,suchaspressinghisrighthandtohishipwherearevolverwas
[21]
holstered,accompaniedbyanangrycountenance,orlikeaimingtothrowapot.

Byinvokingselfdefense,however,Fontanillaadmittedinflictingthefatalinjuriesthatcaused
thedeathofOlais.Itisbasicthatonceanaccusedinaprosecutionformurderorhomicideadmitted
his infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by clear,
satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal
[22]
liability. Having thus admitted being the author of the death of the victim, Fontanilla came to
[23]
bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court, and he
would be held criminally liable unless he established selfdefense by sufficient and satisfactory
[24]
proof. Heshoulddischargetheburdenbyrelyingonthestrengthofhisownevidence,because
theProsecutionsevidence,evenifweak,wouldnotbedisbelievedinviewofhisadmissionofthe
[25]
killing. Nonetheless,theburdentoproveguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtremainedwiththeState
untiltheendoftheproceedings.

Fontanilladidnotdischargehisburden.Areviewoftherecordsrevealsthat,one,Olaisdid
notcommitunlawfulaggressionagainstFontanilla,and,two,Fontanillasactofhittingthevictims
head with a stone, causing the mortal injury, was not proportional to, and constituted an
unreasonableresponsetothevictimsfisticattackandkicks.

Indeed,hadOlaisreallyattackedFontanilla,thelatterwouldhavesustainedsomeinjuryfrom
theaggression.Itremains,however,thatnoinjuryofanykindorgravitywasfoundonthepersonof
Fontanillawhenhepresentedhimselftothehospitalhence,theattendingphysicianofthehospital
[26]
didnotissueanymedicalcertificatetohim.Norwasanymedicationappliedtohim. Incontrast,
thephysicianwhoexaminedthecadaverofOlaistestifiedthatOlaishadbeenhitontheheadmore
than once. The plea of selfdefense was thus belied, for the weapons used by Fontanilla and the
locationandnumberofwoundsheinflictedonOlaisrevealedhisintenttokill,notmerelyaneffort
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 5/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
locationandnumberofwoundsheinflictedonOlaisrevealedhisintenttokill,notmerelyaneffort
topreventorrepelanattackfromOlais.Weconsidertobesignificantthatthegravityofthewounds
[27]
manifestedthedeterminedeffortoftheaccusedtokillhisvictim,notjusttodefendhimself.

TheCAandtheRTCfoundthattreacherywasattendant.Weconcur.Fontanillahadappeared
outofnowheretostrikeOlaisonthehead,firstwiththewoodenstick,andthenwithabigstone,
causing Olais to fall to the ground facedown. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack
effectivelydeniedtoOlaistheabilitytodefendhimselfortoretaliateagainstFontanilla.

The imposition of reclusion perpetua by the CA was warranted under Article 248 of the Revised
[28]
PenalCode, whichprescribesreclusionperpetuatodeathasthepenaltyfor murder. Under the
rulesonthe


[29]
applicationofindivisiblepenaltiesinArticle63oftheRevisedPenalCode, thelesserpenaltyof
reclusionperpetuaisimposedifthereareneithermitigatingnoraggravatingcircumstances.Yet,the
CourtpointsoutthattheRTCerroneouslyimposedRECLUSIONPERPETUATODEATHasthe
penalty. Such imposition was bereft of legal justification, for reclusion perpetua and death, being
indivisible, should not be imposed as a compound, alternative or successive penalty for a single
felony.Inshort,theimpositionofoneprecludedtheimpositionoftheother.

The Court also modifies the limiting of civil damages by the CA and the RTC to only the
deathindemnityofP50,000.00.Whendeathoccursduetoacrime,thedamagestobeawardedmay
include: (a) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim (b) actual or compensatory
[30]
damages(c)moraldamages(d)exemplarydamagesand(e)temperatedamages.

Accordingly,theCAandtheRTCshouldalsohavegrantedmoraldamagesinadditiontothe
[31]
death indemnity, which were of different kinds. The death indemnity compensated the loss of
life due to crime, but appropriate and reasonable moral damages would justly assuage the mental
[32]
anguishandemotionalsufferingsofthesurvivingfamilyofOlais. Althoughmentalanguishand
emotionalsufferingsofthesurvivingfamilywerenotquantifiablewithmathematicalprecision,the
Courtmustnonethelessstrivetosetanamountthatwouldrestoretheheirsofthedeceasedtotheir
moral status quo ante. Given the circumstances, P50,000.00 should be reasonable as moral
[33]
damages, which, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, we are bound to award despite the
absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs mental anguish and emotional suffering. The
rationalefordoingsorestedonhumannatureandexperiencehavingshownthat:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 6/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
rationalefordoingsorestedonhumannatureandexperiencehavingshownthat:

xxxaviolentdeathinvariablyandnecessarilybringsaboutemotionalpainandanguishonthepartof
thevictimsfamily.Itisinherentlyhumantosuffersorrow,torment,painandangerwhenalovedone
becomesthevictimofaviolentorbrutalkilling.Suchviolentdeathorbrutalkillingnotonlysteals
from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and
[34]
support,butoftenleavesthemwiththegnawingfeelingthataninjusticehasbeendonetothem.

AnotheromissionoftheCAandtheRTCwastheirnonrecognitionoftherightoftheheirs
ofthevictimtotemperatedamages.Thevictimswifetestifiedaboutherfamilysincurringfuneral
expensesofP36,000.00,butonlyP18,000.00wasbackedbyreceipts.Itisalreadysettledthatwhen
actualdamagessubstantiatedbyreceiptssumuptolowerthanP25,000.00,temperatedamagesofat
leastP25,000.00becomejustified,inlieuofactualdamagesinthelesseramountactuallyprovedby
receipts.Itwouldobviouslybeunfairtotheheirsofthevictimtodenythemcompensationbyway
of actual damages despite their honest attempt to prove their actual expenses by receipts (but
[35]
succeeding only in showing expenses lower than P25,000.00 in amount). Indeed, the heirs
should not be left in a worse situation than the heirs of another victim who might be nonetheless
allowedtemperatedamagesofP25,000.00despitenothavingpresentedanyreceiptsatall.Withthe
victimswifehavingprovedP18,000.00worthofexpenses,grantinghisheirstemperatedamagesof
P25,000.00,notonlyP18,000.00,isjustandproper.Nottodosowouldfosteratravestyofbasic
fairness.
TheCivilCodeprovidesthatexemplarydamagesmaybeimposedincriminalcasesaspartof
[36]
thecivilliabilitywhenthecrimewascommittedwithoneormoreaggravatingcircumstances.
TheCivilCodepermitssuchdamagestobeawardedbywayofexampleorcorrectionforthepublic
[37]
good,inadditiontothemoral,temperate,liquidatedorcompensatorydamages. Inlightofsuch
legal provisions, the CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement of the heirs of the
victimtoexemplarydamagesonaccountoftheattendanceoftreachery.Itwasofnomomentthat

treachery was an attendant circumstance in murder, and, as such, inseparable and absorbed in
[38]
murder.AswellexplainedinPeoplev.Catubig:

The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified
otherwise,istobeunderstoodinitsbroadorgenericsense.Thecommissionofanoffensehasatwo
prongedeffect,oneonthepublicasitbreachesthesocialorderandtheotherupontheprivatevictim
as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of
heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The
increaseofthepenaltyorashifttoagraverfelonyunderscorestheexacerbationoftheoffensebythe
attendanceofaggravatingcircumstances,whetherordinaryorqualifying,initscommission.Unlike
the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is
likewise,ifnotprimarily,intendedfortheoffendedpartywhosuffersthereby.It would make
littlesenseforanawardofexemplarydamagestobeduetheprivateoffendedpartywhenthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 7/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
littlesenseforanawardofexemplarydamagestobeduetheprivateoffendedpartywhenthe
aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the
ordinaryorqualifyingnatureofanaggravatingcircumstanceisadistinctionthatshouldonly
be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine,
relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the
unbridledmeaningofArticle2230oftheCivilCode.

[39]
Forthepurpose,P30,000.00isreasonableandproperasexemplarydamages, foralesseramount
wouldnotserveresultingenuineexemplarity.

WHEREFORE,weAFFIRMthedecisionpromulgatedonJune29,2006bytheCourtofAppeals,
subject to the MODIFICATION of the civil damages, by ordering accused Alfonso Fontanilla y
Obaldo to pay to the heirs of Jose Olais P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P30,000.00 as
exemplarydamagesinadditiontotheP50,000.00asdeathindemnityandtheP50,000.00asmoral
damages,plusinterestof6%perannumonsuchamountsfromthefinalityofthejudgment.

Theaccusedshallpaythecostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:


RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson






TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 8/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
AssociateJustice




CERTIFICATION


PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsintheabove
Decisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinion
oftheCourtsDivision.


RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

*ViceAssociateJusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo,whotookpartintheproceedingsintheCourtofAppeals,perraffleofJanuary18,2012.
[1]
CArollo,pp.98108pennedbyAssociateJusticeConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.(laterPresidingJustice,nowretired),withAssociateJustice
MarianoC.DelCastillo(nowaMemberoftheCourt)andAssociateJusticeVicenteS.E.Velosoconcurring.
[2]
Bellangisabluntinstrumentmadeofcoconutwoodusedbybarangaytanodintheirpatrols(perTSNNovember12,1998,p.6).
[3]
Records,pp.167168.
[4]
Id.,p.1.
[5]
Id.,pp.167168.
[6]
Id.,p.170.
[7]
CArollo,p.101.
[8]
Records,p.170.
[9]
Id.,p.168.
[10]
CArollo,p.101
[11]
Records,p.172

[12]
Id.,p.169.
[13]
Id.,p.170.
[14]
Id.
[15]
Id.,p.172.
[16]
CArollo,pp.104105.
[17]
Id.,pp.105106.
[18]
Id.,pp.107108.
[19]
Article11(1),RevisedPenalCode.
[20]
Calimv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.140065,February13,2001,351SCRA559,571.
[21]
Peoplev.Nugas,G.R.No.172606,November23,2011.
[22]
Cabuslayv.People,G.R.No.129875,September30,2005,471SCRA241,256257.
[23]
Peoplev.Capisonda,1Phil.575(1902)Peoplev.Baguio,43Phil.683(1922)Peoplev.Gutierrez,53Phil.609(1929)Peoplev.
SilangCruz,53Phil.625(1929)Peoplev.Embalido,58Phil.152(1933)Peoplev.Dorico,No.L31568,November29,1973,54SCRA
172,183Peoplev.BoholstCaballero,G.R.No.L23249,November25,1974,61SCRA180,186Peoplev.Quio,G.R.No.105580,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 9/10
5/25/2017 G.R.No.177743
172,183Peoplev.BoholstCaballero,G.R.No.L23249,November25,1974,61SCRA180,186Peoplev.Quio,G.R.No.105580,
May17,1994,232SCRA400,403Peoplev.Camacho,G.R.No.138629,June20,2001,359SCRA200,207Peoplev.Galvez,G.R.
No.130397,January17,2002,374SCRA10,16Peoplev.Mayingque,G.R.No.179709,July6,2010,624SCRA123.
[24]
Peoplev.Gelera,G.R.No.121377,August15,1997,277SCRA450,461Cabuslayv.People,G.R.No.129875,September30,
2005,471SCRA241,256257.
[25]
Peoplev.Molina,G.R.No.59436,August28,1992,213SCRA52,65Peoplev.Alapide,G.R.No.104276,September20,1994,236
SCRA555,560Peoplev.Albarico,G.R.Nos.10859697,November17,1994,238SCRA203,211Peoplev.Camahalan,G.R.No.
114032,February22,1995,241SCRA558,569.
[26]
TSN,May23,2000,p.12.
[27]
Peoplev.Nagum,G.R.No.134003,January19,2000,322SCRA474,479,Peoplev.Baniel,G.R.No.108492,July15,1995,275
SCRA472,482.
[28]
Article248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofArticle246shallkillanother,shallbeguiltyofmurder
andshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetuatodeath,ifcommittedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
1.Withtreachery,takingadvantageofsuperiorstrength,withtheaidofarmedmen,oremployingmeanstoweakenthedefenseorof
meansorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunity.
2.Inconsiderationofaprice,reward,orpromise.
3.Bymeansofinundation,fire,poison,explosion,shipwreck,strandingofavessel,derailmentorassaultuponarailroad,fallofanairship,
orbymeansofmotorvehicles,orwiththeuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin.
4.Onoccasionofanyofthecalamitiesenumeratedintheprecedingparagraph,orofanearthquake,eruptionofavolcano,destructive
cyclone,epidemicorotherpubliccalamity.
5.Withevidentpremeditation.
6.Withcruelty,bydeliberatelyandinhumanlyaugmentingthesufferingofthevictim,oroutragingorscoffingathispersonorcorpse.
[29]
Article63.Rulesfortheapplicationofindivisiblepenalties.Inallcasesinwhichthelawprescribesasingleindivisiblepenalty,it
shallbeappliedbythecourtsregardlessofanymitigatingoraggravatingcircumstancesthatmayhaveattendedthecommissionofthe
deed.
Inallcasesinwhichthelawprescribesapenaltycomposedoftwoindivisiblepenalties,thefollowingrulesshallbeobservedinthe
applicationthereof:
1.Wheninthecommissionofthedeedthereispresentonlyoneaggravatingcircumstance,thegreaterpenaltyshallbeapplied.
2.Whenthereareneithermitigatingnoraggravatingcircumstancesinthecommissionofthedeed,thelesserpenaltyshallbeapplied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penaltyshallbeapplied.
4.Whenbothmitigatingandaggravatingcircumstancesattendedthecommissionoftheact,thecourtsshallreasonablyallowthemto
offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
precedingrules,accordingtotheresultofsuchcompensation.
[30]
Peoplev.Domingo,G.R.No.184343,March2,2009,580SCRA436,456.
[31]
HeirsofCastrov.RaymundoBustos,L25913,February28,1969,27SCRA327.

[32]
Article2206,(3),inrelationtoArticle2217andArticle2219,CivilCode,andArticle107,RevisedPenalCode.
[33]
Peoplev.Salva,G.R.No.132351,January10,2002,373SCRA55,69Peoplev.Osianas,G.R.No.182548,September30,2008,
567 SCRA 319, 340 Peoplev.Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196,August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 337, 367368 Peoplev.Domingo, G.R. No.
184343,March2,2009,580SCRA436,456457Peoplev.Berondo,G.R.No.177827,March30,2009,582SCRA547.
[34]
Peoplev.Panado,G.R.No.133439,December26,2000,348SCRA679,690691.
[35]
Peoplev.Lacaden,G.R.No.187682,November25,2009,605SCRA784,804805.
[36]
Article2230,CivilCode.
[37]
Article2229,CivilCode.
[38]
G.R.No.137842,August23,2001,363SCRA621,635.
[39]
SeePeoplev.DelaCruz,G.R.No.188353,February16,2010,612SCRA738,Peoplev.DelRosario,G.R.No.189580,February9,
2011,642SCRA625.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177743.htm 10/10