SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 130492. January 31, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR ARROJADO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from
the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19,
Roxas City, finding accused-appellant Salvador Arrojado guilty of murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of 30 years of reclusion perpetua and
to pay the amounts of P60,000.00 as civil indemnity, P80,000.00
as moral damages, and the costs to the heirs of the victim Mary Ann Arrojado.[2]
The information against
accused-appellant alleged:
That on or about the 1st day of June, 1996, in the City of Roxas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, and stab one Mary Ann Arrojado, on the different parts of the body, to wit:
1. Stab wound, gaping, 1.5 cm. in length with a depth of 5 cm. located at the supra sternal area;
2. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 10 cm. depth, directed downward 5 cm. above the left nipple area at the level of midclavicular line;
3. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 2.5 cm. in length, 5.5 cm. depth, located 4 cm. above the left nipple area, midclavicular line;
4. Stab
wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 18.5[3] cm. in depth, directed medially downward, located 3
cm. above the left nipple, midclavicular line;
5. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 5 cm. depth, located 3 cm. medial to the left nipple;
6. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 4 cm. in length, 10.5 cm. in depth, directed laterally downward, located 2 cm. medial to the left nipple;
7. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3.5 cm. in length, 12 cm. in depth, directed laterally, located 2 cm. medial to the left nipple;
8. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 5.5 cm. in depth directed downward, located at the xiphoid area;
9. Stab wound, elongated gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 4 cm. in depth, directed medially, located 4 cm. below the left nipple;
10. Stab wound penetration, measuring 4 x 4 cm. in length with [e]visceration of the small intestine;
thereby inflicting upon her serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death.
That by reason of the death Mary Ann Arrojado, her heirs incurred actual and moral damages which may be awarded under the Civil Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
The information was read
and explained to accused-appellant in his native dialect, after which he
pleaded not guilty.[5] Trial on the merits then ensued.
The evidence for the
prosecution shows the following:
Accused-appellant
Salvador Arrojado and the victim Mary Ann Arrojado are first cousins, their
fathers being brothers. The victim’s
father, Alberto Arrojado, who was living in Canada, suffered a stroke for which
reason he decided to come home to Roxas City and spend the remainder of his
days there. The victim accompanied her father to the Philippines. They eventually settled in a house in
Barangay Tanque, Roxas City, where they lived on the financial support of the
victim’s sister Asuncion, who continued
to live in Canada, and her brother Buenaventura, who lived in Manila.
Starting February 15,
1996, accused-appellant lived with the victim and her father. He helped care for the victim’s father, for
which he was paid a P1,000.00 monthly salary.[6]
In the early morning of
June 1, 1996, accused-appellant went to the house of his cousin, Erlinda
Arrojado Magdaluyo, and reported that the victim had committed suicide. In response, Erlinda, together with her
husband Romulo Magdaluyo and her father Teodorico Arrojado, went with
accused-appellant to the house in Barangay Tanque where they found the victim
dead. The victim, who was bloodied, was
lying on her left side facing the bedroom door
with her hands clasped together.
On her bed was a rosary and a crucifix.
Near her was a knife (Exh. C).[7] Erlinda recognized it to be the knife kept
in the kitchen. Erlinda also noticed
that the electric fan was turned on full blast, while all the windows were
closed except the window on the east side which was slightly open. As he went to the other room, where the
victim’s father stayed, accused-appellant told Erlinda that he was afraid he
might be suspected as the one responsible for the victim’s death.[8]
The matter was reported
to the police which noticed that the victim’s room “was very neat as if nothing
happened.” The police saw no signs of
forcible entry.[9] They made a sketch of the victim’s position
in relation to the whole house (Exh. D)[10] and took pictures of her (Exhs. E—E-3).[11]
Dr. Ma. Lourdes Roldan,
of the Roxas City Health Office, conducted the postmortem examination of the
victim at 1:30 p.m. of June 1, 1996.
Her findings revealed that the victim sustained the following stab
wounds:
1. Stab wound, gaping, 1.5 cm. in length with a depth of 5 cm. located at the supra sternal area;
2. Stab wound, elongated gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 10 cm. depth, directed downward, located 5 cm. above the left nipple area at the level of midclavicular line;
3. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 2.5 cm. in length, 10.5 cm. depth, located 4 cm. above the left nipple area, midclavicular line;
4. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 18.5 cm. in depth directed medially downward located 3 cm. above the left nipple, midclavicular line;
5. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 5 cm. in depth, located 3 cm. medial to the left nipple;
6. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 4 cm. in length, 10.5 cm. in depth, directed laterally downward, located 2 cm. medial to the left nipple;
7. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3.5 cm. in length, 12 cm. in depth, directed laterally, located 2 cm. medial to the left nipple;
8. Stab wound, elongated gaping measuring 3 cm. in length and 5.5 cm. in depth, directed downward, located at the xiphoid area;
9. Stab wound, elongated, gaping, measuring 3 cm. in length, 4 cm. in depth, directed medially, located 4 cm. below the left nipple;
10.Stab wound penetration, measuring 4 x 4 cm. in length with
evisceration of the small intestine;[12]
Dr. Roldan testified that
the victim died at around midnight of May 31, 1996 from wound nos. 2, 4, 6, 7,
and 10, which she deemed fatal.[13] Thus, in the victim’s death certificate
(Exh. B),[14] she listed “HEMORRHAGIC SHOCK” as the
victim’s immediate cause of death and “multiple stab wounds” as the antecedent
cause.
Erlinda Arrojado
Magdaluyo testified that the relationship between the victim and
accused-appellant had been strained as the victim constantly picked on
accused-appellant even for the slightest mistake. Erlinda remembered the scolding that the victim gave
accused-appellant on May 27, 1996 over the loss of keys. Accused-appellant was
badly hurt by the victim’s tonguelashing, according to Erlinda, and complained
to the victim, “You’re too much.” Erlinda said she offered to take the victim
in her house, but the latter refused, saying that her place was with her
father. The victim entrusted, however,
her jewelry and bank book with signed withdrawal slips to Erlinda. Three days later, on May 30, 1996, Erlinda
returned the same and told the victim that she should not be afraid of
accused-appellant because he was taking care of both her (the victim) and her
father. Erlinda said she again met the
victim on May 31, 1996 when she reminded the latter of their agreement to go
out the following day, June 1, 1996. On
that day, however, the victim was found dead.[15]
Another relative of
accused-appellant and the victim, Thelma Arrojado, corroborated Erlinda’s
testimony. The father of Thelma’s husband, Roque Arrojado, is a brother of the
victim’s father and that of accused-appellant.
Thelma said that she and her husband lived at one time with the victim,
and she knew the latter to be a snob (“suplada”) and overly strict. Because they did not get along with the
victim, Thelma and her husband eventually left. She testified that accused-appellant was angry at the victim and
in fact passed by her store thrice (on May 27, 29, and 31, 1996), complaining
to her of the victim’s maltreatment of him.[16]
Accused-appellant
testified in his behalf. He told the
court that on June 1, 1996, at around 6:00 a.m., Alberto Arrojado asked him for food, so accused-appellant went to
the kitchen to find out if the victim had already prepared breakfast. When accused-appellant found that the victim
was not in the kitchen, he proceeded to the victim’s room. From the doorway, he saw the victim lying on
her bed, bloodied. He thought that the
victim had committed suicide because the victim had told him that she felt tied
down taking care of her father. She in
fact once remarked that “It would be better that my father and I commit
suicide.” Accused-appellant said that the victim scolded him only once and that
was for buying rotten cabbage.[17] He said that the victim was the one who was
constantly being scolded by her father who often found fault with her. When presented with the knife found on the
victim’s bed (Exh. C), accused-appellant admitted he was familiar with the
knife as he saw the victim using it in the kitchen.
On April 21, 1997, the
trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds and
declares accused Salvador Arrojado GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
heinous crime of murder, defined and penalized by Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act 7659, and, there being no
aggravating circumstance, hereby sentences him to imprisonment of thirty (30)
years of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Mary Ann Arrojado in the amount of P60,000.00, pay them moral damages of
P80,000.00, and pay the costs of this action.
In the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, the accused, who is a detention prisoner and not otherwise disqualified, shall be credited with the full time of his confinement under preventive imprisonment, provided he voluntarily agrees in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners, pursuant to Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.[18]
The trial court held that
there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict accused-appellant for
the victim’s death. In its decision,
the trial court said:
The accused was the only person in the world who had the strong
motive to eliminate from earthly existence the deceased, who had no known
enemies, as he could no longer endure the verbal abuse to which he was
frequently subjected, even on trivial matters, by the deceased whom he must
have perceived as his evil tormentor. Being older [but] every now and then
scolded, insulted, and humiliated, he must have felt that the deceased had no
respect for him as a person and elder cousin.
Suicide being physically impossible and there being no shred of evidence
showing that an intruder could have surreptitiously entered the house as all
doors and windows were securely closed, the killing could have been done only
by someone who was already inside the house.
Certainly it could not have been the deceased’s old and invalid father
who could not stand on his own, much less walk from his room to the kitchen,
get the fatal weapon, the kitchen knife, from where it was placed therein, walk
to his daughter’s room, and then stab her.
As there were only the three of them inside the house, that leaves no
one else, by the process of elimination, who could have perpetrated the
dastardly act but the accused who had the only motive to do it and who was
inside the house at the time of the commission of the crime. Reinforcing this conclusion is the admission
of the accused that when he peeped into the room of the deceased and allegedly
saw for the first time the lifeless body of the victim, he was already sure,
even without going near or touching her body and asking aloud what happened to
her, that she was already dead because he himself killed her. He saw to it that she would die because he
stabbed her not only once, but ten (10) times, inflicting five (5) mortal
wounds. And he had the gall to
attribute his cousin’s untimely death to suicide because he could not concoct
any other reason to save himself.[19]
Hence this appeal.
Accused-appellants assigns the following errors as allegedly having been
committed by the trial court:
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT MARY ANN ARROJADO WAS STABBED TEN TIMES AT HER HOME.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT MARY ANN ARROJADO COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED SUICIDE.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE HOUSE OF MARY ANN ARROJADO WAS TOTALLY CLOSED AND LOCKED AGAINST INTRUDERS.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS ABUSED AND OPPRESSED BY MARY
ANN ARROJADO THAT LED ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO KILL MARY ANN ARROJADO.[20]
First. Accused-appellant claims that most of the
victim’s wounds were inflicted after she had already committed suicide to make
it appear that she was murdered. He
says that he saw only one wound in the victim’s stomach,[21] while Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo said she
saw only two wounds, one on the victim’s neck and the other in her abdomen.
These are wound nos. 1 and 10 in the postmortem examination.[22] Of these two, the stomach wound was fatal,
according to Dr. Roldan.[23] Accused-appellant says that the other wounds
may have been inflicted on the victim between the time the body was brought out
of the house in the morning and the time Dr. Roldan examined the same at around
1:30 o’clock in the afternoon of June 1, 1996 at the De Jesus funeral parlor.[24]
Accused-appellant’s
contention has no merit. That
accused-appellant only saw one wound while Erlinda Magdaluyo saw two wounds on
the victim does not necessarily mean that the other wounds were inflicted upon
the victim afterwards. The two might have simply missed seeing the other
wounds. In accused-appellant’s case, it
may be because he did not go inside the room but only viewed the body from a
distance.[25] On the other hand, while Erlinda Arrojado
Magdaluyo went near the victim, she said she did not see if there were wounds
on the victim’s chest because the latter was dressed.[26] But Dr. Roldan, who conducted a postmortem
examination, testified that the victim actually sustained ten wounds. Between the cursory examination of the
victim by accused-appellant and Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo and Dr. Roldan’s
exhaustive examination, there is no doubt that the latter’s findings are
entitled to credence.
Accused-appellant also
argues that the varying depths of wound nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 (10 cm., 10.5
cm., 5 cm., 5.5 cm., and 4 cm.) despite the fact that they had the same surface
length of 3 cm. could only mean that after the victim was found dead, she was
again stabbed with a knife or knives other than the one (Exh. C) found beside
her.[27]
The contention is without
merit. The variance in depth does not necessarily mean that more than one
weapon was used. As has been stated:
[I]t is not possible to determine the depth
of penetration of a stab wound with any degree of accuracy, inasmuch as
effusion of blood into the tissues, changes in the position of the viscera, or
numerous other circumstances may alter the conditions existing at the time when
the wound was inflicted. Consequently,
the depth of the track at autopsy may be different from the actual penetration
of the instrument at the time of the stabbing.
Moreover, it is not always possible to correlate the depth of the
wound with the blade of the stabbing instrument. For example, a short blade of two inches can penetrate four
inches into a soft area like the thigh or through the anterior abdominal wall
because the force of the thrust may dent the tissues appreciably and thus
deepen the wound. Conversely, a long
blade may not be thrust into its full length, and the wound may be shorter than
the blade. For these reasons
attempts to correlate the depth of the track and the length of the weapon
should be made with caution.[28]
Dr.
Roldan in fact testified that the kitchen knife, marked as Exh. C, could have caused all the wounds sustained
by the victim.[29] She also testified that the stab wounds
could have all been inflicted in the span of one minute.[30] Having examined no less than 100 victims of
violence,[31] Dr. Roldan’s conclusions should be given
credence.
Moreover, with the
exception of wound no. 10, all the wounds were described by Dr. Roldan as
“gaping.” As stated in Forensic
Medicine:
. . . An ante-mortem wound gapes; there is eversion of the edges; a
large amount of blood is present, this is coagulated and infiltrating the
wound; and there is swelling and signs of inflammation and repair. In a
post-mortem wound there is no gaping.
The bleeding is slight, if any, and it does not infiltrate the wound.[32]
This belies accused-appellant’s
theory that the victim committed suicide and that it was only after she was
found dead that she was again stabbed to make it appear that she had been
killed.
Nor were the bloodstains
which PO2 Orly Baril[33] and Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo[34] found on the victim’s hands necessarily
evidence of the victim’s suicide. The
bloodstains could have come from the wounds sustained by her rather than from
her attempt to kill herself.
Accused-appellant also
insists the victim committed suicide because she was feeling despondent over
her remaining single, her lack of regular employment which made her dependent
on the support of her siblings, and the responsibility of taking care of her
father who had become an invalid. He
cites Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo’s testimony that the victim entrusted her
jewelry and bank book to her four days before she died.[35]
Erlinda, however,
testified that the victim did this because she had a premonition that
accused-appellant might harm her, and not because of any intimation that she
(the victim) would kill herself.[36]
Contrary to the claim of
accused-appellant that the victim was a depressed person with a low sense of
self-worth, Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo described the victim as “a jolly person”
who had many friends who go to her house.
Moreover, according to Erlinda, the victim, while not earning a fixed
income, was not without means of livelihood.
The victim was good at cooking and took orders from neighbors. Erlinda also disclosed that on the very day
the victim was found dead, she and the victim had plans to go out for
relaxation.[37] This negates any theory that the victim
committed suicide.
Second.
Somewhat inconsistently with his claim that the victim was a suicide,
accused-appellant disputes the trial court’s conclusion that only one of those
residing in the house could have killed the victim because the police found no
sign of a break-in. Accused-appellant
says that in the morning of June 1, 1996, he found that the kitchen door
leading outside was open.[38]
Accused-appellant’s
contention must fail. Accused-appellant
admitted that it did not occur to him that an intruder was in the house in the
evening of May 31, 1996 because “No person could get inside because the windows
were closed and besides the doors were closed.”[39]
Significantly, Erlinda
Arrojado Magdaluyo testified that accused-appellant also said that no person
could get inside the house because the doors and the windows were closed.[40] Accused-appellant never told Erlinda that
the kitchen door was open that morning.
Indeed, Erlinda testified that “it is not possible that somebody would
enter the house as the doors were securely locked . . . with additional barrel
bolts, and the windows have grills.”[41]
Third.
Accused-appellant contends that Thelma Arrojado’s testimony does not deserve
consideration because, by her own admission,[42] the victim’s sister Asuncion asked her to
testify on accused-appellant’s complaints against the victim’s treatment of
him. He also claims that it was
inconsistent for Erlinda to testify, on the one hand, that the victim was
“loving, friendly, and reasonable” and, on the other, to say that she was
strict and domineering.
Accused-appellant cites the testimony of the victim’s brother,
Buenaventura Arrojado, that before her death the victim denied having any
quarrel with accused-appellant.[43]
To be sure, the
evaluation of the trial court of the credibility of witnesses will not be
disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that it overlooked certain facts or
circumstances of substance that, if considered, could have affected the outcome
of case. This is because the trial
court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility having
heard the witnesses and observed their deportment during the trial.[44] In this case, accused-appellant’s contention
that the testimonies of Thelma Arrojado and Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo are
incredible is without merit. Thelma
Arrojado’s admission that the victim’s sister Asuncion had asked her to testify
does not impair her credibility. Thelma
was candid enough to say that at first she was hesitant to testify because
accused-appellant is also her relative.
But she denied having been coached on what to say, stating that she only
testified as to “what Salvador Arrojado said to me” which is that he could not
bear the victim’s maltreatment.[45]
As for Erlinda Arrojado
Magdaluyo, she said that she suspected accused-appellant but she did not want
to say anything until she had proof.[46] She testified also that so far as she knew,
only accused-appellant harbored a grudge against the victim, and that
accused-appellant himself told her so.[47] With regard to Erlinda’s seemingly
inconsistent description of the victim, suffice it to say that the victim’s
treatment of accused-appellant does not necessarily reflect her attitude and
behavior toward other people.
Anent the testimony of
the victim’s brother, Buenaventura Arrojado, that the victim denied having any
quarrel with accused-appellant when he called her up two weeks before her
death,[48] it is possible that the victim did not want
to bother her brother who was after all too far (since he lived in Manila) to
be of much help. It is only to be
expected that Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo and Thelma Arrojado, who lived near
accused-appellant and the victim, have a much more accurate assessment of the real
relationship between accused-appellant and the victim. Buenaventura Arrojado testified that it was
Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo who told him of the alleged quarrel between the
victim and accused-appellant.[49]
In sum, the following
circumstances point to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime:
1. Accused-appellant, the victim, and the
latter’s father were the only ones living in the house in which the crime was
committed in the evening of May 31, 1996.[50]
2. No one from the outside can gain entry since
all doors of the house were locked and the windows had grills.[51]
3. Accused-appellant had access to the
victim’s bedroom because the bedroom doors were left unlocked so that the
victim could check on her father’s condition during the night. Accused-appellant sleeps in the same bedroom
as the victim’s father.[52]
4. The murder weapon was a kitchen knife
readily accessible to the occupants of the house.[53] As the Solicitor General observed, common
sense dictates that if an outsider entered the house with the intent to kill
the victim, he would have brought his own weapon to ensure the execution of his
purpose.[54]
5. None of the victim’s belongings was missing
or disturbed, indicating that the motive for the crime was not gain but
revenge.[55]
6. Judging from the number and severity of the
wounds (10 stab wounds, half of which were fatal),[56] the killer felt deep-seated resentment and
anger toward the victim.
Accused-appellant had admitted those feelings to Erlinda Arrojado
Magdaluyo and Thelma Arrojado.[57]
7. Aside from accused-appellant, no one was
known to harbor a grudge against the victim.[58]
8. As the Solicitor General also pointed out,
accused-appellant’s behavior in the morning of June 1, 1996 was inconsistent
with someone who had just found his cousin and employer, a person he claims to
get along with, dead.[59] By his testimony, he did not even go inside
the room to check on her condition on the lame excuse that he was afraid. He also did not inform his neighbors about
the incident for the equally flimsy reason that he did not know them nor did he
go to the police.[60]
Under Rule 133, §4 of the
Rules on Evidence, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inference are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
As the foregoing discussion shows, these requisites have been
established in this case.
Fourth.
With respect to the circumstances attending the commission of the crime,
the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery
against accused-appellant. To
appreciate treachery, two conditions must be present: (1) the employment of
means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate and (2) the means of execution is deliberately or
consciously adopted.[61] Both requisites have been established in
this case.
Anent the first
requisite, Dr. Roldan testified that based on her findings, the victim was not
in a position to fight the assailant and that she might have been stabbed while
she was asleep.[62] As regards the second requisite, the number
and nature of the wounds sustained by the victim lead to no other conclusion
than that accused-appellant employed means in killing the victim which tended
directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the victim might take.
Accused-appellant would not have inflicted so many wounds, a total of
10, half of which were fatal, if he had not deliberately adopted such manner of
attack.[63] Abuse of superior strength also attended the
killing since accused-appellant, a man and armed with a knife, attacked the
victim, an unarmed and defenseless woman.[64] However, since abuse of superior strength is
absorbed in treachery, there is no need to appreciate it separately as an
independent aggravating circumstance.[65]
The trial court correctly
held that there was no proof of evident premeditation since the requisites
therefor, to wit, (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime;
(b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his
determination; and (c) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act,[66] have not been established in this case.
Nor can the generic
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated against accused-appellant
since the latter and the victim lived in the same house.[67]
The aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence, however, is present in this case. For this
aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to show that the confidence
between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the
accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal
act. The confidence must be a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the
offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence.[68] In this case, while the victim may have
intimated her fear for her safety for which reason she entrusted her jewelry
and bank book to Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo, her fears were subsequently
allayed as shown by the fact that she took back her personal effects from
Erlinda.[69] Thinking that accused-appellant would not do
her any harm, because he was after all her first cousin, the victim allowed
accused-appellant to sleep in the same room with her father and left the
bedroom doors unlocked.[70]
The murder in this case
took place after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659 on December 31, 1993 which
increased the penalty for murder from reclusion temporal maximum to
death to reclusion perpetua to death.
In view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence and in accordance with Art. 63(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the
trial court should have imposed the penalty of death on accused-appellant. However, on December 1, 2000, the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect, requiring that every complaint or
information state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating
circumstances.[71] This provision may be given retroactive
effect in the light of the well settled rule that “statutes regulating the
procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage.
Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.”[72] The aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence not having been alleged in the information, the same therefore could
not be appreciated to raise accused-appellant’s sentence to death.
In accordance with the
ruling in People v. Lucas[73] that the penalty of reclusion perpetua remains indivisible
notwithstanding the fixing of its duration from twenty (20) years and one (1)
day to forty (40) years,[74] the trial court erred in imposing on accused-appellant the penalty of
30 years of reclusion perpetua.
In line with the ruling in Lucas, accused-appellant should suffer
the entire extent of forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua.[75]
Consistent with current
case law,[76] the civil indemnity for the crime of murder
should be reduced from P60,000.00 to P50,000.00, while the award
of moral damages in the amount of P80,000.00 should be reduced to P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 19, Roxas City, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant
Salvador Arrojado is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
its entire duration and to its full extent.
Furthermore, he is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Mary Ann
Arrojado the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and the further sum
of P50,000.00 as moral damages and the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Per
Judge Sergio Pestaño.
[2] Records,
pp. 106-118.
[3] Should be 10.5 cm. per Exh. A; id,
p. 57.
[4] Id., p. 1.
[5] Id., p. 24.
[6] TSN
(Buenaventura Arrojado), pp. 2-36, Aug. 6. 1996.
[7] Retained by the trial court.
[8] TSN
(Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo), pp. 2-16, July 23, 1996.
[9] TSN
(PO2 Orly Baril), pp. 2-59, July 22, 1996.
[10] Records, p. 59.
[11] Id., pp. 60-61.
[12] Exh.
A; id., p. 57.
[13] TSN,
pp. 2-45, July 16, 1996.
[14] Records, p. 58.
[15] TSN,
pp. 19-23, July 23, 1996.15 TSN,
pp. 2-29, Aug. 5, 1996.
[16] TSN, pp.
2-29, Aug. 5, 1996.
[17] TSN,
pp. 2-66, Aug. 12, 1996.
[18] RTC
Decision, p. 13; Records p. 118.
[19] Id., pp. 12-13; id., pp. 117-118.
[20] Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 63.
[21] TSN,
p. 49, Aug. 12, 1996.
[22] TSN,
p. 33, July 29, 1996.
[23] TSN,
p. 27, July 16, 1996.
[24] Accused-Appellant’s Brief, p. 8; Rollo, p. 70.
[25] TSN,
pp. 15, 48, Aug. 12, 1996.
[26] TSN, p. 58, July 29, 1996.
Q Did you see any hole on the
clothing of the victim that a knife might have gone through?
A No, because I don’t see her wounds
here. (Witness pointing to her chest.) I only saw her wounds on the abdomen and
on the back of the neck, because the shirt was lifted up and the back of the
neck has no cover.
[27] Appellant’s Brief, p. 9; Rollo, p. 71.
[28] T.
Gonzales, M. Vance, M. Herlpern, & C. Umberger, Legal Medicine Pathology
and Toxicology 338 (1954) . (Emphasis
added)
[29] TSN,
p. 31, July 16, 1996.
[30] Id., p. 37.
[31] Id., pp. 6-7.
[32] D.
Kerr, Forensic Medicine 77 (1954).
[33] TSN,
p. 58, July 22, 1996.
[34] TSN,
p. 33, July 29, 1996.
[35] TSN,
p. 20, July 23, 1996.
[36] Id., pp. 20-21.
[37] TSN,
pp. 6-9, 22, July 29, 1996.
[38] TSN,
p. 44, Aug. 12, 1996.
[39] Id., p. 45.
[40] TSN,
p. 13, July 23, 1996.
[41] Id.
[42] TSN
(Thelma Arrojado), pp. 10-11, Aug. 5, 1996.
[43] TSN,
pp. 21-22, Aug. 6, 1996.
[44] E.g.,
People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 136818, Dec. 19, 2000.
[45] TSN,
pp. 10-11, Aug. 5, 1996.
[46] TSN,
pp. 12-13, July 29, 1996.
[47] TSN,
pp. 23-24, July 23, 1996.
[48] TSN, pp.
21-22, Aug. 6, 1996.
[49] Id, pp. 21-22.
[50] TSN
(Salvador Arrojado), p. 9, Aug. 12, 1996.
[51] Id., p. 45; TSN (Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo),
p. 13, July 23, 1996.
[52] TSN
(Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo), p. 45, July 29, 1996.
[53] Id., p. 12, July 23, 1996; p. 60, July
29, 1996; TSN (Salvador Arrojado), p. 53, Aug. 12, 1996.
[54] Appellee’s Brief, p. 12; Rollo, p. 124.
[55] TSN
(Buenaventura Arrojado), p. 27, Aug. 6, 1996; TSN (PO2 Orly Baril), p. 12, July
22, 1996.
[56] TSN
(Dr. Ma. Lourdes Roldan), pp. 16-28, July 16, 1998.
[57] TSN
(Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo), pp. 23-24, July 23, 1996; TSN (Thelma Arrojado),
pp. 10-11, Aug. 5, 1996.
[58] TSN
(Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo), p. 35, July 29, 1996.
[59] Appellee’s Brief, p. 14; Rollo, p. 126.
[60] TSN
(Salvador Arrojado), pp. 57, 61-62, Aug. 12, 1996.
[61] E.g., People v. Bayotas, G.R.
No. 136816, Dec. 19, 2000.
[62] TSN,
p. 42, July 16, 1996.
[63] See People v. Panida, 310 SCRA 66 (1999).
[64] People
v. Amazan, G.R. Nos. 136251 and 138606-07, Jan. 16, 2001.
[65] E.g., People v. Candare, G.R. No.
129558, June 8, 2000; People v. Gutierrez, 302 SCRA 643 (1999).
[66] People
v. De la Tongga, G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000.
[67] U.S. v.
Rodriguez, 9 Phil. 136 (1907).
[68] People
v. Gelera, 277 SCRA 450 (1997).
[69] TSN
(Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo), p. 24, July 29, 1996.
[70] Id., p. 45.
[71] Rule
110, §8 states in pertinent part:
Designation of the
offense. ¾ The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute,
aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. If there
is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection
of the statute punishing it.
[72] Ocampo
v. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 27 (1989); Alday v. Camilon,
120 SCRA 521 (1983); People v. Sumilang,
77 Phil. 764 (1946).
[73] 240
SCRA 66 (1995) citing People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA 402
(1992).
[74] Revised Penal Code, Art. 27, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
[75] People
v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997).
[76] E.g., People v. De la Tongga, G.R.
No. 133246, July 31, 2000.