G.R. No. 135919.

May 9, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DANNY DELOS SANTOS Y FERNANDEZ, appellant.
Facts:

On November 6, 1997, in the Municipality of San Jose, Del Monte, Province of Bulacan,
Philippines, appellant Danny Delos Santos Fernandez accused guilty with intent to kill Rod Flores Juanitas,
with treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab, hitting him on the different parts of his body which directly caused his death. That during
the crime happened, Marvin Tablate witnessed the gruesome killing of Flores, while drinking with the
victim and other two men in Sarmiento Homes, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.

Marcelino De Leon, testified also since he was there when the crime happened because he
borrowed the cart of the victim and the appellant emerged from the back of the victim and stabbed him
with a knife, making an upward and downward thrust. Dr. Caballero’s findings led him to believe that it
was possible that appellant was behind the victim considering the stab wounds inflicted at his back.
Romeo Flores, the father of the victim, testified that his son was working at Vitarich and earning P600.00
every 15th day of the month and he spent large sum of amount for his son’s burial and wake.

The trial court rendered the decision to impose upon the accused-appellant the penalty of death
by lethal injection and is condemned to indemnify the heirs of the deceased with a large sum of amount.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible even after the two-
month period from the commission of the crime

(2) Whether or not the accused-appellant is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt

(3) Whether or not the accused-appellant indemnifies damages to the heirs of the victim

Held:
Yes. The court ruled that the two-month delay is hardly an indicium of a concocted story. It is but
natural for witnesses to avoid being involved in a criminal proceeding particularly when the crime
committed is of such gravity as to show the cruelty of the perpetrator. Born of human experience, the
fear of retaliation can have a paralyzing effect on the witnesses. Thus, in People vs. Dacibar, we held that
the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case is of common knowledge
and has been judicially declared as insufficient to affect credibility, especially when a valid reason exists
for such hesitance.

No. Even though there is no evidence that the accused-appellant has a motive to kill Flores which
invokes him to be charged with reasonable doubt, the alibi and denial are worthless since he was
positively identified by the prosecution witnesses.

Yes. The heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnify damages as it has been shown beyond a
reasonable doubt that the appellant killed the victim

However, in the imposition of penalty, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of

cruelty considered by the trial court since it does not conform with the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.

WHEREFORE, the Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION of the penalty to suffer Reclusion Perpetua
and pay the heirs of the deceased for damages incurred.
G.R. No. 152527 October 20, 2005

JOEY GUIYAB y DANAO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

On December 12, 1992 at about 9:00 p.m., while the victim Rafael Bacani and Joseph Madriaga
were conversing in front of the Community Center in Tumauini, a certain Juan Sanchez approached and
kicked them. As they posed for a fistfight, petitioner Joey Guiyab uttered "Pureban nu ta inanna nu" (You
try and you will see.) while brandishing a knife. Joseph retreated and jumped over the fence. He then
picked up a stone, grabbed Juan Sanchez by the hair and struck him in the head. It was then that petitioner
chased him. Failing to catch him, petitioner turned to Rafael who was following them. Petitioner stabbed
Rafael once on the right chest, which resulted in death of the victim the next day.

Dr. Erasmo testified that the antecedent cause of which is hypovolemic shock and the underlying
cause is the stab wound at the anterior (right) chest

ISSUES:
(1) WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
TO CONVICT HIM OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

(2) WHETHER OR NOT THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED AS THE ASSAILANT WAS FULLY ESTABLISHED
BY THE PROSECUTION.

RULINGS:
Petitioner claims that the real identity of the assailant was not fully established by the prosecution
since the lone eyewitness learned the name of the petitioner only after it was fed to him by Police Officer
Armando Lugo, which he believes that it was tainted with conjecture and speculation Joseph Madriaga
witnessed the whole incident and positively identified the petitioner. This is sufficient to convict
petitioner.

Knowing the identity of an accused is different from knowing his name. Hence, the positive
identification of the malefactor should not be disregarded just because his name was supplied to the
eyewitness. The weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the fact that the said witness saw the
accused commit the crime, and not because he knew his name.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, which sustained the judgment
of the Regional Trial Court, finding petitioner JOEY GUIYAB guilty of Homicide and sentencing him to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum and to PAY the heirs
of Rafael Bacani for damages incurred, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
are AFFIRMED.
G.R. No. 152133, February 9, 2006
ROLLIE CALIMUTAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

FACTS:
Calimutan was charged with the crime of homicide. On 04 February 1996, Cantre harboring a
grudge against Bulalacao, suspecting the latter as the culprit responsible for throwing stones at the
former’s house on a previous night. Thus, upon seeing Bulalacao, victim Cantre suddenly punched him.
Calimutan, in order to protect his helper Bulalacao who was much younger and smaller in built than the
victim Cantre picked up a stone as big as a fist and threw the same to Cantre. The stone hit Cantre at the
left side of his back. After which, Sañano (who was then with Cantre) was able to convinced both Cantre
and Calimutan to stop fighting and go home.

Victim Cantre complained of backache & stomachache, and was unable to eat. By nighttime,
victim Cantre was alternately feeling cold and then warm. He was sweating profusely and his entire body
felt numb. For the last time, he complained of backache and stomachache, and shortly thereafter, he died.

An autopsy of the body of the victim Cantre was conducted by Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez of NBI. In
his testimony before the RTC, Dr. Mendez affirmed the contents of his exhumation and autopsy report.
He explained that the victim Cantre suffered from an internal hemorrhage and there was a massive
accumulation of blood in his abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen. The laceration of the spleen
can be caused by any blunt instrument, such as a stone. Hence, Dr. Mendez confirmed the possibility that
the victim Cantre was stoned to death by petitioner Calimutan.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not an accused, who in trying to stop an altercation, inflicted a fatal blow to the victim
may be held liable for an intentional felony.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held in the negative. In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender
is malicious. In the language of Art. 3, the act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice). The
offender, in performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another. In culpable felonies, the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury caused by
the offender to another person is "unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed
without malice." (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939). As stated in Art. 3, the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

In the Petition at bar, this Court cannot attribute to petitioner Calimutan any malicious intent to
injure, much less to kill, the victim Cantre. Instead, this Court finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365
of the Revised Penal Code. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing
to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part
of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time
and place (Article 365, RPC).

The above-described incident could not have taken more than just a few minutes. It was a very
brief scuffle, in which the parties involved would hardly have the time to ponder upon the most
appropriate course of action to take. With this in mind, this Court cannot concur in the declaration made
by the Court of Appeals that petitioner Calimutan threw the stone at the victim Cantre as a retaliatory act.
It was evidently a swift and spontaneous reaction to an unexpected and unprovoked attack by the victim
Cantre on Bulalacao. That Bulalacao was already able to run away from the victim Cantre may have
escaped the notice of the petitioner Calimutan who, under the pressure of the circumstances, was forced
to act as quickly as possible.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner Calimutan is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, and is further
ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim Cantre the damages incurred
GR NO. 155791, 2005-03-16
G.R. NO. 155791. March 16, 2005
MELBA QUINTO, Petitioners, v. DANTE ANDRES and RANDYVER PACHECO, Respondents.

Facts:
At around 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1995, eleven-year-old Edison Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary
school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto,, were at Barangay San Rafael, Tarlac. They saw respondents
Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. Andres and Pacheco invited
Wilson to go fishing with them inside the drainage culvert. Wilson assented. When Garcia saw that it was
dark inside, he opted to remain seated in a grassy area about two meters from the entrance of the
drainage system.

Respondent Pacheco had a flashlight. He, along with respondent Andres and Wilson, entered the
drainage system which was covered by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter wide, with water
about a foot deep. After a while, respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage
system and left without saying a word. Respondent Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged
again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead. Respondent Andres laid the boy's lifeless body
down in the grassy area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled from the scene. For his part,
respondent Andres went to the house of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother, and informed her
that her son has had died. Melba Quinto rushed to the drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed
her.

Dr. Aguda declared that the causes of death were Asphyxia by drowning and traumatic head
injuries which were occurred with two possibilities: (a) that the deceased could have been hit by a blunt
object or instrument applied with full force; or (b) the deceased could have slipped, fell hard and his head
hit a hard object:

Issues:
(1) WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF RESPONDENTS' CRIMINAL LIABILITY, LIKEWISE, CARRIES
WITH IT THE EXTINCTION OF THEIR CIVIL LIABILITY
(2) WHETHER OR NOT PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS TO HOLD RESPONDENTS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR
THE DEATH OF WILSON QUINTO.

Rulings:
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However,
the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the
civil action that the act or omission from where the civil liability may arise does not exist
In the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce
preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the
petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages.

The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Dr. Aguda that the deceased might have slipped,
causing the latter to fall hard and hit his head on the pavement. However, the absence of any ill-motive
to kill the deceased is relevant and admissible in evidence to prove that no violence was perpetrated on
the person of the deceased. In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the
part of either respondent to kill the deceased before or after the latter was invited to join them in fishing.
Indeed, the petitioner testified that respondent Andres used to go to their house and play with her son
before the latter's death.

In sum, the petitioner failed to adduce preponderance of evidence to prove a cause of action for
damages based on the deliberate acts alleged in the Information.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. No costs.
G.R. No. 121828. June 27, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. EDMAR AGUILOS, ODILON LAGLIBA Y ABREGON and RENE
GAYOT PILOLA, accused, RENE GAYOT PILOLA, appellant.

FACTS:
Joselito Capa and Julian Azul were drinking in a store in Mandaluyong, while in the midst of the
drinking spree, Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba, arrived and they were invited to join the drinking. During
the course of the drinking, Edmar had an argument with the Julian that led to a commotion of the store.
The fight was pacified by the store owner. Edmar and Odilon leave the store but later on returned, Edmar
punched Julian in the face, the latter and the former exchanged punches. Joselito intervened to stop the
fight but Odilon grabbed Joselito in the neck and stabbed the latter with a knife, Ronnie and accused
arrived at the scene and they saw their gang mate, Odilon, stabbing the victim, they immediately pulled
out their knives and subsequently stabbed the victim. Not contented with the stabbing of the victim,
Ronnie bashed a hollow block and a broken bottle to the head of the victim, the three accused fled from
the scene of the crime. Leaving the victim dead on the spot.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the accused should be considered as a co- principal in the commission of the
crime and not merely an accomplice

HELD
It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of
the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied
if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each
other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment

All things considered, we rule that Ronnie and the appellant conspired with Odilon to kill the
victim; hence, all of them are criminally liable for the latter’s death. The appellant is not merely an
accomplice but is a co-principal by direct participation.

Even assuming that the appellant did not conspire with Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the
appellant is nevertheless criminally liable as a principal by direct participation

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding appellant Rene Gayot Pilapil GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant is hereby
directed to pay to the heirs of the deceased the damages incurred