Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/320975907/People-of-the-Philippines-vs-Restituto-Carandang-Et-Al
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:40:52+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.
HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA, Accused-Appellants.
This is an appeal by Henry Milan and Jackman Chua from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
of said PO2 DIONISIO ALONZO Y SALGO.
victim in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the Civil Code.
He found that the gunshot wounds of Red and Alonzo were the cause of their deaths. Manuel Roxas and Dr. who was right behind SPO2 Red. to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party. Milan and Chua pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. The two groups eventually met at the back of the house near Milan's room.11 It was around 11:00 p. but nevertheless did not produce it by reasons or causes independent of the will of the perpetrators. that is the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said SPO1 WILFREDO MONTECALVO Y DALIDA. the Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 1 at the time of the incident. SPO2 Red formed a team composed of the officers who accompanied him during the interrogation. SPO1 Montecalvo's group went to the left side of the house. SPO2 Red. P/Supt. talked to Milan's sister.12 SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the house.14 | Page 2 of 14 . SPO2 Red told the group that the persons inside the room would not put up a fight.m. SPO1 Estores and SPO1 Montecalvo. during which they requested for the presence of a certain Colonel Reyes and media man Ramon Tulfo. causing it to fall and propelling them inside the room.6 they alighted from their vehicles and surrounded Milan's house. the drug enforcement unit of the La Loma Police Station 1 received a request for assistance from the sister of accused Milan regarding a drug deal that would allegedly take place in her house at Calavite St.10 but Carandang and Chua remained holed up inside the house for several hours. with him as team leader. when the group introduced themselves as police officers. Brgy. Due to the suddenness of the attack. 2001. Winston Tan. a mobile patrol car and an unmarked car. who was in their office. yielded the following version of the facts: In the afternoon of April 5.upon him serious and mortal injuries. PO2 Alonzo shouted "Walang gagalaw!" Suddenly. The prosecution evidence. while SPO2 Red's group proceeded to the right. Calaro.9 SPO1 Montecalvo was brought to the Chinese General Hospital. accompanied by Police Officer (PO) 2 Dionisio Alonzo. Wilson Tan. Insp. Milan stepped out of the house and was also brought to a hospital. Insp. However. Chief Operations Officer of the La Loma Police Station 1. SPO1 Estores heard Chua say to Milan. hitting PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red who dropped to the floor one after the other.7 PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open. SPO1 Montecalvo. Quezon City. Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. The team received further instructions from the station commander then proceeded to Calavite Street aboard two vehicles. SPO1 Rodolfo Estores. Thereafter.. The door to Milan's room was open. but the latter was able to fire his gun and hit Milan. PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red were not able to return fire and were instantly killed by the barrage of gunshots. to 12:00 midnight when Carandang and Chua surrendered. There was a lengthy negotiation for the surrender of Carandang and Chua..5 When the team reached the place at around 4:00 p. gunshots rang. upon the arrival of P/Sr. Milan immediately shut the door. making them confident that nothing violent would erupt. SPO1 Estores went inside the house and pulled SPO1 Montecalvo out. SPO1 Montecalvo fell to the ground. Roxas. enabling the police officers to see Carandang. Salvacion. and P/Supt. their bodies slumped on the floor with broken legs and gunshot and grenade shrapnel wounds.8 Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.4 On May 15. the offender thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence. conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodies of SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo.m. Milan and Chua inside. The station commander called SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red and instructed him to talk to Milan's sister. culled from the testimonies of Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Wilfredo Montecalvo. Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. 2001. That the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. was still aiming his firearm at the assailants when Carandang shot and hit him.) Virgilio Calaro. "Sugurin mo na!" Milan lunged towards SPO1 Montecalvo.13 Dr.m. accused-appellants Carandang.
He was hit on the left side of his body. there was banging on the door. at the time of the incident.17 Milan testified that he was at home in Calavite St. He went out of the house at around midnight when the three arrived. removing a bullet from the right portion of his nape. Chua did not pay much attention as Milan and Carandang discussed about cellular phones.324. finding the accused RESTITUTO CARANDANG. Later.20 On April 22.18 Chua testified that he went to the house of Milan at around noontime of April 4. causing burns on Carandang's left arm. Chua cried out to him that he was hit and that he might lose blood. He remained in that position for several hours until he lost consciousness. Col. HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder described and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 63 of the same Code. He was already being treated at the Chinese General Hospital when he regained consciousness. He knew Carandang for seven months. testifying as follows: Carandang claims that he had no firearm during the incident. prompting him to take cover under a bed. later testified that the paraffin test on Chua yielded a negative result for gunpowder nitrates. Milan ran outside and sustained injuries as well. The door of the house was destroyed and gunfire suddenly erupted. Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory. and two unidentified men barged in. Chua remained seated and Carandang was still on the bed. She was not able to conduct a paraffin test on Milan. 2001 to play a card game. He was in Milan's house during the incident in order to ask Milan to accompany him to convert his cellular phone's SIM card. Chua heard successive gunshots and was hit on his left big toe. jointly and severally. Col.16 Since gunshots were still heard every now and then. He ran out of the room. Suddenly. He ducked on the floor near the bed to avoid being hit further. he found Milan and Chua playing a card game. and that it was the police officers who fired all the shots. He stood and approached the door to check. for the killing of SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red and PO2 Dionisio Alonzo qualified by treachery and acting in conspiracy with each other. maraming matatanda dito!" Milan was then hit on his left leg by another gunshot.15 The defense presented the three accused as witnesses. the place became dark as the lights went out. Gunfire continued coming from different directions for two to three minutes. They played inside Milan's ground floor room. When he arrived at Milan's place. a paraffin test was conducted upon him. Grace Eustaquio. 2003. Chua was their neighbor. they heard someone pounding at the door.19 P/Sr.According to SPO1 Montecalvo's account. Carandang requested for the presence of his wife. SPO1 Montecalvo's hospitalization expenses amounted to P14. Insp. A short time later. they heard a loud banging in the door as if it was being forced open. There was an explosion near the door. Five to ten minutes later. The door was destroyed. as follows: | Page 3 of 14 . they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of murder and to indemnify the heirs of the victims. leaving Chua and Carandang behind. While playing a card game inside his room. Gunshots erupted. who just came from the operating room when she saw him. The door was forcibly opened. but that performed on Carandang produced a positive result. Carandang stayed in the house and did not come out. Milan seemed to be in pain and refused to be examined. Carandang arrived and laid down on the bed. Tor. In said hospital. negotiated for Carandang to come out. Bu Castro of the Chinese General Hospital operated on him. Milan and Chua guilty of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder: WHEREFORE. Milan stood up to see what was happening. the new Chief of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Sikatuna. He testified that it was a nightmarish experience for him as he feared that he might be paralyzed later on.48. Dr. the trial court rendered its Decision21 finding Carandang. he saw his mother lying down and shouting "Itigil niyo ang putukan. Doroteo Reyes and media man Ramon Tulfo. As he was doing so.
00 as moral damages. 3.C. they are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years of prision mayor to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. P522.R.580. P20. paragraph 2.00 as civil indemnity.00 as actual damages. P50. 160510-12. finding the accused Restituto Carandang.00 as actual damages.R. P20.23 The appeals were separately docketed as G. 25 the appeals were transferred26 to the Court of Appeals.000.00 as actual damages.000. described and penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 6. Mateo. and 4. CA-G.000. and 4.00 as moral damages. 01934. however.000.00 as moral damages. the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision modifying the Decision of the trial court: | Page 4 of 14 . and 4. P139. P50.00 as reasonable attorney's fees. 3. P14. To pay the costs. 2006. 2.00 as compensatory damages. where they were assigned a single docket number. P50.960.To the heirs of SPO2 Wilfredo Red: 1. Likewise. On May 10.910. Nos. Milan and Chua appealed to this Court. 3. P752. P149. No. 24 Pursuant. 2.00 as compensatory damages To the heirs of PO2 Dionisio Alonzo: 1.734. having acted in conspiracy with each other and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. CR.000.-H. P50.22 Carandang.00 as civil indemnity. and to indemnify the victim Wilfredo Montecalvo as follows: 1. 2.000. to the decision of this Court in People v. Henry Milan and Jackman Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder.000.
the latter shot him.27 Milan and Chua appealed to this Court anew. the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy in the commission of the crimes charged. Q-01-100063. 2008." immediately shots rang out from inside the room. Upon arrival of police officers Red. respectively. page 8).62. in Criminal Case Nos. premises considered.28 Carandang did not appeal. October 16. Alonzo and SPO2 Wilfredo P. then Red. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062. That the three acted in concert can be gleaned from their actuations. Milan and Chua's actuations showed that they acted in concert against the police officers. Thus. Alonzo and the others and having identified themselves as police officers. | Page 5 of 14 . The pertinent portion of the RTC Decision reads: Milan. the qualifying circumstance of treachery not having been duly proven to have attended the commission of the crimes charged.WHEREFORE.30 The trial court had ruled that Carandang. accused-appellants are hereby instead sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. Carandang and Chua were all inside the room of Milan. eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. they closed the door. 2001. all three accused were held equally criminally responsible therefor. Q-01-100061-63 finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Murder and one (1) count of Frustrated Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows: 1) In Criminal Case Nos. Chua was heard by Estores to shout to Milan: "Sugurin mo na" (tsn. Assuming arguendo that conspiracy exists. and 2) In Criminal Case No. PO2 Alonzo and SPO1 Montecalvo. "walang gagalaw. The trial court explained that Carandang.140.243.269. The court a quo erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the appellants in the case at bar. With costs against the accused-appellants. Milan and Chua filed a Supplemental Appellant's Brief to further discuss the Assignment of Errors they presented in their September 28.29 On April 9.69 and P2. Red an indemnity for loss of earning capacity in the amount of P2. despite the established fact that it was Carandang who fired the gun which hit SPO2 Red. to fourteen (14) years. the door was closed and after Alonzo and Red pushed it open and as Alonzo shouted. then Montecalvo. felling Alonzo. accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay the heirs of PO2 Dionisio S. and instead presented a letter informing this Court that he is no longer interested in pursuing an appeal. the court a quo gravely erred in convicting them of the crime of murder and frustrated murder instead of homicide and frustrated homicide only. Not one of them came out to talk peacefully with the police officers. as minimum. First. 2004 Appellant's Brief: I. Branch 76.980. And as Milan lunged at Montecalvo. II. as maximum. when they learned of the presence of the police officers.
According to them. said police officers were not able to return fire. it appears to have been uttered as a result of indiscretion or lack of reflection and did not inherently carry with it inducement or temptation. when SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were finally able to get inside. upon seeing their victims helplessly lying on the floor and seriously wounded. to wit: In the present case. Then. On second look. Insofar as Chua is concerned.31 In affirming this ruling. they were instantly killed by the sudden barrage of gunfire. Milan's and Chua's arguments focus on the lack of direct evidence showing that they conspired with Carandang during the latter's act of shooting the three victims. Chua ordered Milan to attack the police officers. that act actually facilitated the commission of the crime. In fact. Milan immediately closed the door. Carandang opened fire. Assuming arguendo that Chua uttered "Sugurin mo na!" to Milan. however.40 It is allegedly hard to imagine that SPO1 Montecalvo with certainty heard Chua utter the phrase "Sugurin mo na.32 Milan and Chua object to the conclusion that they were in conspiracy with Carandang due to their acts of closing the door and not peaceably talking to the police officers. Moreover. Milan rushed towards Montecalvo but the latter. there were lots of gunshots. he did not immediately surrender even when he had the opportunity to do so but instead chose to stay with Carandang inside the room until their arrest. Thus. was able to shoot him. as we have held in People v. Following the order. however.35 Appellants contest the factual finding that Chua directed Milan to go after SPO1 Montecalvo. the Court of Appeals further expounded on the acts of Milan and Chua showing that they acted in concert with Carandang. Chua immediately dove down near the bed while Milan ran out of the room out of fear. PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red died instantly as a result while SPO1 Montecalvo was mortally wounded. because of the suddenness of the attack.41 To summarize. 37 Furthermore. was that Milan ran out of the room for safety and not to attack SPO1 Montecalvo. when appellants were alerted of the presence of the police officers.36 Milan claims that he was already injured in the stomach when he ran out. Milan's act of closing the door may seem a trivial contribution in the furtherance of the crime. Alonzo and Red did not even have the chance to touch their firearms at that instant.39 They claim that when the shootout ensued. However. At first glance.38 In the Supplemental Brief. Carandang peppered them with bullets. Milan and Chua point out that the assault on the victims was the result of the impulsive act of Carandang and was not a result of any agreement or a concerted action of all the accused. his participation in the conspiracy consisted of lending encouragement and moral ascendancy to his co-conspirators as evidenced by the fact that he ordered Milan to attack the already fallen police officers with the obvious intention to finish them off. according to them." considering that the incident happened so fast. alleging that they were both unarmed and that there was no way for Milan to attack an armed person. and it was natural for him to seek safety. giving them no opportunity to stop Carandang. 42 conspiracy may also be proven by other means: | Page 6 of 14 . The brief moment during which the police officers were trying to open the door paved the way for the appellants to take strategic positions which gave them a vantage point in staging their assault. appellants argue that no crime was committed due to the same as all the victims had already been shot when said words were shouted. What really happened.33 Milan and Chua further assert that the fortuitous and unexpected character of the encounter and the rapid turn of events should have ruled out a finding of conspiracy.34 They claim that the incident happened so fast. those acts were caused by their being frightened by the police officers who were allegedly in full battle gear. when the police officers were finally able to break open said door.Instead. Thereafter. Sumalpong.
are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record. absurd or impossible. or that Milan's act of attacking SPO1 Montecalvo was what made him a principal by direct participation. Appellants' attempt to instill doubts in our minds that Chua shouted "sugurin mo na" to Milan.46 Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of conspiracy. since there was no other modifying circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery. | Page 7 of 14 . it could even be expected that he is interested in having only the real perpetrators punished. Unlike evident premeditation. must fail. is sufficient. 2001. as a general rule. (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of the trial court. Instead. during and after the crime. allowing Carandang to wait in ambush. (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record. the penalty that should be imposed is reclusion perpetua. would justify a different conclusion.48 The trial court correctly sentenced appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken. expressly or impliedly. Proof of concerted action before. Instead. except in certain instances such as when: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations. As part of the team that was attacked on that day. As co-conspirators. When conspiracy is established. which demonstrates their unity of design and objective. (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based. and is consequently in a better position to determine which of the witnesses are telling the truth. The penalty for murder under Article 24849 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. these facts are convincing circumstantial evidence of the unity of purpose in the minds of the three. Treachery is thus present in the case at bar. this Court.Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Applying Article 6350 of the same Code.47 As held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. as what is decisive for this qualifying circumstance is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate. The sudden gunshots when the police officers pushed the door open illustrate the intention of appellants and Carandang to prevent any chance for the police officers to defend themselves. surmises or conjectures. we have time and again ruled that factual findings of the trial court. Contrary to the suppositions of appellants. (3) there is grave abuse of discretion. (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case.45 It was the trial court that was able to observe the demeanors of the witnesses. would not review the factual findings of the courts a quo. who then ran towards SPO1 Montecalvo. allowing Carandang to wait in ambush).43 In the case at bar. SPO1 Estores has no reason to lie about the events he witnessed on April 5. these facts are not meant to prove that Chua is a principal by inducement. (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. if properly considered. (5) the findings of fact are conflicting. especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals. and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. to commit the subject felony. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that. Milan's act of closing the door facilitated the commission of the crime. all three are considered principals by direct participation. Furthermore. conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree. the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with Carandang was established by their acts (1) before Carandang shot the victims (Milan's closing the door when the police officers introduced themselves. the act of one is the act of all regardless of the degree of participation of each. there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. SPO1 Estores's positive testimony44 on this matter prevails over the plain denials of Milan and Chua. and (2) after the shooting (Chua's directive to Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milan's following such instruction). Thus.
140. which should be applied in this case considering that there is no modifying circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery. is 14 years.000.-H.00 as civil indemnity for each victim must be increased to P75.00 as civil indemnity and P30. he is only solidarily liable with Milan and Chua with respect to the amounts awarded by the Court of Appeals.000. P50. in Criminal Case Nos. 01934.00 as exemplary damages) shall be borne only by Milan and Chua.00 as exemplary damages.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of each of the victims.00 as civil indemnity and P 30. Milan and | Page 8 of 14 . P50. which is awarded when the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance. Thus.000.00. the award of P50. who are hereby held liable therefor solidarily. however. The modified term of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum. The civil liabilities of appellants should.00 as exemplary damages) are likewise to be solidarily borne only by Milan and Chua. Q-01-100063.000.-H. P75. P2. Q-01-100063. iv.00 are awarded automatically.000.00 as civil indemnity.00 as moral damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang. Reclusion temporal has a range of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.54 In cases of murder and homicide. 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED.734. Under Article 5051 in connection with Article 61.00 shall be the solidary liability of Milan and Chua only. iii. PO2 Dionisio S.58 The additional amounts (P20. and thus may be any term within prision mayor.000.000. Red. In Criminal Case No. Its medium period. ii.000.00 as actual damages to be soldarily borne by Carandang.000. civil indemnity of P75. In Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062. the Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty for the frustrated murder of SPO1 Montecalvo. to summarize the rulings of the lower courts and this Court: a.00 as moral damages and P20. since the Court of Appeals' Decision has become final and executory with respect to him. while P25. The heirs of SPO2 Wilfredo Red are entitled to the following amounts: i. in addition to the amounts to which they are solidarily liable with Restituto Carandang as held in CA-G.00. the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.55 Appellants are furthermore solidarily liable to each victim for P30. CR. to 14 years. No.57 An award of P20.56 However.00 as exemplary damages is also warranted.00 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to be solidarily borne by Carandang. 01934 dated May 10. without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.the range of the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty under Section 153 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. be it generic or qualifying.C.R. The additional amounts (P25.In Criminal Case No. Alonzo and SPO2 Wilfredo P.000. the solidary liability of Milan and Chua for moral damages to SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo is likewise increased to P40. is within these ranges. The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should then be within the range of the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal. Milan and Chua.000.000. CR. No.00 of which shall be solidarily borne by Carandang. with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1. be modified in accordance with current jurisprudence.R. since Carandang did not appeal. WHEREFORE. Milan and Chua. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062. which is reclusion temporal.000.C. the range of which is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.000.00 and moral damages of P50.000.980. appellants Henry Milan and Jackman Chua are held solidarily liable for the amount of P25.000. the penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death. paragraph 252 of the Revised Penal Code. 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months . Milan and Chua. P149. Thus.000.
00 as actual damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang. b.00 as moral damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang. appellants Henry Milan and Jackman Chua are held solidarily liable for the amount of P20. P50. ii.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua only.000. P14.00 as civil indemnity.269. CR.000. Appellants are further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of Six Percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this judgment.00 of which shall be solidarily borne by Carandang.000. iii. In Criminal Case No. P50.00 as actual damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang. P75. 3.00 of which shall be solidarily borne by Carandang.000.00 as moral damages and P20. SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo is entitled to the following amounts: i.000. and iv. in addition to the amounts to which they are solidarily liable with Restituto Carandang as held in CA-G.000. while P25. Milan and Chua. P20. 2.000. The heirs of PO2 Dionisio Alonzo are entitled to the following amounts: i.000.000. No.910.000. to be solidarily borne by Carandang.C. SO ORDERED.-H. P20. P20. Thus. ii. P2. Milan and Chua. iii. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: | Page 9 of 14 .000. P30. Milan and Chua.000.00 shall be the solidary liability of Milan and Chua only.243.00 as reasonable attorney's fees.Chua.000.R. 01934. to summarize the rulings of the lower courts and this Court.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua only.00 shall be the solidary liability of Milan and Chua only.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua only. P30.00 as exemplary damages to SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo. Milan and Chua. P139. TERESITA J. iv. Milan and Chua. Milan and Chua. and v.000.00 as moral damages.62 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to be solidarily borne by Carandang. while P20. v. Q-01-100063. P40. Milan and Chua.
2001. pp. p. penned by Associate Justice Martin S. 14-18. 5-7. 5. at 10. 3-22. pp. Article VIII of the Constitution. Villarama. 2001. 3 Id. 9 TSN. pp. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA* Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. August 8. CORONA Chief Justice Footnotes * Per Raffle dated June 27. 2001. 2001. October 16. 2011. RENATO C. Rollo. (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Edgardo F. p. BERSAMIN Associate Justice MARIANO C.RENATO C. 2001. 4 Id. 5-9. pp. Dimaampao. pp. 6 TSN. 5 TSN. Jr. 6-7. 2. 8 TSN. November 12. 2001. | Page 10 of 14 . I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. pp. 7 TSN. September 17. concurring. Sundiam and Japar B. 1 2 Records. September 10. 10 TSN. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson LUCAS P. at 6. August 8. 6-13.
at 64. p. at 293-294. 15-16. 2002. 23 CA rollo. pp. pp. 35 Id. p. 29 Id. 32 Rollo. at 23-24. pp. 27 Rollo. 287. p. pp. 14 Records. September 10. 2002. 13 TSN. 239-240. at 143-146. 17. 34 Id. 33 CA rollo. 24 Id. 2001. pp. 21 Records. Nos. 31 Records. 7. April 22. 2001. 58-59. 3-9. 22 Id. 4-15. p. August 15. 16 TSN. 2001. September 9. 18 TSN. p. 15 TSN. | Page 11 of 14 .11 Id. 28 Id. 36 Id. 2004. 26 CA rollo. 21. 17 Id. 138. at 29. at 139-141. pp. pp. 3-13. pp. at 7-9. pp.R. 2001. at 142-143. 147678-87. 12 TSN. 2002. December 10. July 7. 20 TSN. pp. April 1. pp. 30 CA rollo. 19 TSN. 7-19. 91-92. 25 G. 135-136. 4-11. September 17. 272-294. at 10-14. 433 SCRA 640.
by means of motor vehicles. By means of inundation. at 54.R. or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. stranding of a vessel. explosion. at 53. 375 (1997). 476 Phil. shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. 2001. 46 Pelonia v. or employing means to weaken the defense.37 Id. or of an earthquake. 168997. Art. Barde. Baldimo and Derilo. 6-8. epidemic or any other public calamity. Art. 3. October 16. 338 Phil. 44 TSN. at 151. with the aid of armed men. eruption of a volcano. 501 (1998). 6. G. 521 SCRA 207. p.In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty. poison. September 22. 455. at 146-151. 4. 47 People v. With cruelty. 5. or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. or promise. reward. destructive cyclone. 43 Id. or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.Any person who. by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim. derailment or assault upon a railroad. G. 183094. 39 Rollo. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph. 2. Garin. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. No. fall of an airship. it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. 2007. 45 People v. if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 49 1. pp. 40 Id. 42 348 Phil. 350. . In consideration of a price. fire. 54. . 248. People. 41 Id. taking advantage of superior strength. 2010. 48 People v. April 13. not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another. Murder. 38 Id. shipwreck. 476 (2004). With treachery. With evident premeditation. at 524-525.R. 219. 50 | Page 12 of 14 . No.
When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance. G. the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. 582 SCRA 738. in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code.In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties.The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in a frustrated felony. 2009.R. 2010. No. 55 Id. 437. or as accomplices or accessories.R. the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence. are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony. Mokammad. the following rules shall be observed: 52 xxxx 2. 51 Art. 50. 2. 761. | Page 13 of 14 . G. 186539. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance. and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. 57 People v. Hereafter. of this Code. 622 SCRA 417. Rules of graduating penalties. and if the offense is punished by any other law. the greater penalty shall be applied. No. 3. No. could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code. according to the result of such compensation. the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which. 2009. inclusive. for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules. 180594. Section 1. 61. March 31. August 19. the lesser penalty shall be applied. Orias and Elarcosa.R. 4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed. Art. in view of the attending circumstances. 174483. 513-514. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act. 56 People v. 53 54 People v. the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance. G. or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent. Regalario. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. June 29. . the lesser penalty shall be applied. the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. 596 SCRA 497. according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57. or its amendments. the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.For the purpose of graduating the penalties which. .
| Page 14 of 14 .58 Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 50
 v. 
 v. 
 v.