People of the Philippines vs. Danny delos Santos y Fernandez

An aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the Information to be appreciated in the imposition of the penalty, pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which may be given retroactive effect as a procedural rule. Where the killing is attended by treachery, the crime is murder, but the penalty shall be the lesser of the two indivisible penalties—reclusion perpetua—when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.

The appellant was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659, which carried the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The case arose from a stabbing incident in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, where the appellant allegedly attacked the victim from behind with a kitchen knife. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator.

On November 6, 1997, at around 8:00 p.m., Rod Flores was drinking "gin" with Narciso Salvador, Marvin Tablate, and Jayvee Rainier at the latter's house in Sarmiento Homes, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Marcelino De Leon, who was about to fetch water from a nearby faucet, approached the group and borrowed Flores' cart. While waiting for the cart, De Leon stood across Flores, who was seated and conversing with the group.

Suddenly, appellant Danny delos Santos emerged from behind Flores and stabbed him with a knife, making upward and downward thrusts. Flores ran after being stabbed twice, but appellant pursued him and stabbed him many more times, causing Flores' intestines to bulge out of his stomach. Appellant ceased stabbing Flores only after seeing him dead, then turned his ire against Jayvee Rainier and chased him. De Leon hid himself and later reported the incident to the police. Marvin Tablate corroborated De Leon's testimony, adding that he tried to help Flores by separating him from appellant, who ran away. Tablate also testified that appellant had joined the group at about 11:00 a.m. and kept "coming back and forth."

Dr. Benito Caballero testified that Flores suffered twenty-one stab wounds on the frontal, posterior, and lateral sides of his body, eleven of which were fatal. The doctor stated that it was possible appellant was behind Flores considering the stab wounds inflicted at his back, and that Flores died of "massive external/internal hemorrhages due to multiple stab wounds in the thorax and abdomen penetrating both lungs, heart, stomach, liver, spleen and intestines." Romeo Flores, the victim's father, testified that his son was working at Vitarich, Marilao, Bulacan, earning P600.00 every 15th day of the month; that he spent P100,000.00 for his son's burial and wake; that he had receipts for P19,110.00 for funeral services and the cemetery lot; and that his family had been grieving.

Appellant denied the accusation, testifying that at 8:00 p.m. on November 6, 1997, he was in his auntie's house in Muson, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, forty meters away from the scene of the crime, fetching water. He stated that he and Flores met at about 5:30 p.m. but did not greet each other, and there was no altercation between them. Sonny Bautista testified that he and appellant were in their auntie's house watching television up to 8:30 p.m. and then went home, but he did not inform the policemen of this at the time of appellant's arrest at about 10:00 p.m., nor did he accompany appellant to the police station.

The trial court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, convicting him of murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and sentencing him to death. The court took into account the brutality in the manner by which the victim's life was taken, and absent any mitigating circumstance, imposed the higher of the two penalties provided under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses, pointing to inconsistencies between the testimonies of De Leon and Tablate, and that he should have been acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.
• Lack of Motive: Appellant contended that there was no evidence that he had a motive to kill Flores, as there was no previous heated argument or altercation between them.
• Delay in Executing Sworn Statements: Appellant argued that the prosecution witnesses executed their sworn statements only after two months from the commission of the crime, which raises doubt as to their credibility.
• Insufficient Evidence for Damages: Appellant contended that since the evidence for the prosecution failed to meet the exacting test of moral certainty, the trial court should not have ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Flores.

• Minor Inconsistencies: The Solicitor General countered that the inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor and do not vitiate the fact that he was the one who killed Flores.
• Alibi and Denial: The Solicitor General argued that appellant's defenses of alibi and denial are worthless since he was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses, and that he failed to proffer any explanation why the prosecution witnesses implicated him.
• Aggravating Circumstance: The Solicitor General argued that the crime was aggravated by cruelty because appellant "butchered" Flores until his intestines bulged out of his stomach.
• Indemnification: The Solicitor General maintained that the heirs of Flores are entitled to indemnification as it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that appellant killed him.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses despite alleged inconsistencies.
• Motive: Whether the absence of motive to kill the victim warrants acquittal.
• Delay in Executing Statements: Whether the two-month delay in the execution of the prosecution witnesses' sworn statements casts doubt on their credibility.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Cruelty: Whether the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not alleged in the Information, may be appreciated to enhance the penalty.
• Damages: Whether the trial court erred in the amounts awarded as civil indemnity, loss of earning capacity, actual and compensatory damages, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The trial court's findings on credibility were upheld, the alleged inconsistencies being minor and collateral matters that do not affect the substance of the witnesses' declarations.
• Motive: No. Proof of motive is not indispensable for conviction where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established.
• Delay in Executing Statements: No. The two-month delay is hardly an indicium of a concocted story, as it is natural for witnesses to avoid being involved in a criminal proceeding, particularly given the gravity and cruelty of the crime.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Cruelty: No. The aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not having been alleged in the Information, may not be appreciated to enhance the liability of appellant, pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Damages: Partially. The awards were modified: civil indemnity of P50,000.00 affirmed; actual damages reduced to P19,170.00 with temperate damages of P25,000.00 granted; moral damages of P50,000.00 affirmed; exemplary damages reduced to P25,000.00; and loss of earning capacity computed at P266,400.00.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Settled is the rule that appellate courts generally do not overturn the findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses, as the latter are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through actual observation of their manner of testifying, demeanor, and behavior in court. The first alleged inconsistency—whether appellant joined the group earlier—was understandable because De Leon approached Flores only at about 8:00 p.m. and stayed only about thirty minutes, unlike Tablate who was with the group in a drinking spree. The second alleged inconsistency—whether anyone assisted Flores—was minor and did not enfeeble the prosecution's theory, as De Leon was so shocked in witnessing the gruesome killing that it would be too much to demand full recollection of details. Inconsistencies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of declarations, their veracity, or the weight of testimony; they only serve to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The two prosecution witnesses were one in saying that it was appellant who stabbed Flores with a knife.

• Motive: Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established. In the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense; it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. No such doubt existed here as De Leon and Tablate positively identified appellant.

• Delay in Executing Statements: 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 witnesses. 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.

• Aggravating Circumstance of Cruelty: Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. This rule may be given retroactive effect in light of the well-established rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. The aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not having been alleged in the Information, may not be appreciated to enhance the liability of appellant. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the consummated crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending the crime.

• Damages: The heirs of Flores are entitled to P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity ex delicto. As regards actual damages, out of the P55,070.00 awarded by the trial court, only P19,170.00 was actually supported by receipts; the other amounts were based solely on a list prepared by Romeo Flores. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to the injured party. In light of People vs. Abrazaldo, the Court granted P25,000.00 as temperate damages inasmuch as the proven actual damages is less than P25,000.00. The moral damages of P50,000.00 was affirmed, there being proofs that because of Flores' death, his heirs suffered wounded feelings, mental anguish, anxiety, and similar injury. The exemplary damages was reduced to P25,000.00. The loss of earning capacity was computed using the formula: life expectancy of 2/3 x (80 - age of victim at time of death), multiplied by net annual income. With Flores' annual gross income of P14,400.00, less 50% for necessary and incidental expenses, his net income was P7,200.00; multiplied by his life expectancy of 37 years, the loss of earning capacity was P266,400.00.

• Credibility of Witnesses — Appellate courts generally do not overturn the findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses, as the latter are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through actual observation of their manner of testifying, demeanor, and behavior in court. The Court applied this rule in affirming the trial court's conviction, finding no reason to deviate from the trial court's assessment of the prosecution witnesses' credibility.

• Inconsistencies in Testimony — Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony; they only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The Court applied this doctrine to the alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of De Leon and Tablate.

• Motive Not Indispensable — Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established. In the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense; it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it.

• Alibi and Denial — For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.

• Treachery — Where the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from behind with no weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be described as treacherous. The Court found treachery present because the prosecution established that appellant's attack on Flores was from behind without any slightest provocation on his part and that it was sudden and unexpected.

• Allegation of Aggravating Circumstances — Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. This rule may be given retroactive effect in light of the well-established rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not having been alleged in the Information, could not be appreciated to enhance the appellant's liability.

• Actual and Temperate Damages — To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to the injured party. Where the proven actual damages is less than P25,000.00, temperate damages of P25,000.00 may be granted.

• Loss of Earning Capacity — The amount of indemnity for loss of earning capacity is based on the income at the time of death and the probable life expectancy of the victim, computed using the formula: life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of the victim at the time of death); loss of earning capacity = net annual income x life expectancy.

• "Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established." — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine on motive in criminal cases, stating that motive is not an element of murder and becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive.

• "Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. This rule may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well-established rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the reduction of the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, holding that unalleged aggravating circumstances cannot enhance the penalty.

• "Where the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from behind with no weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be described as treacherous." — This passage defines the application of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, supporting the conviction for murder.

• "To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to the injured party." — This passage states the rule on actual damages, requiring competent proof and the best evidence obtainable, and supports the grant of temperate damages where proven actual damages fall below the threshold.

• People vs. Galano, 384 Phil. 206 (2000) — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense and becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive.
• People vs. Dacibar, 382 Phil. 618 (2000) — Cited for the rule 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.
• People vs. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 6, 2003 — Cited as the recent case supporting the grant of P25,000.00 as temperate damages where the proven actual damages is less than P25,000.00.
• People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 636 — Cited for the reduction of exemplary damages to P25,000.00.
• People vs. Cabande, 381 Phil. 889 (2000) — Cited for the formula in computing life expectancy and loss of earning capacity.
• People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 144266, November 27, 2002 — Cited for the retroactive application of procedural rules to pending actions.
• People vs. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 5, 2003 — Cited for the rule that the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applied to convict appellant of murder qualified by treachery.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 7659 — Amended Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Cited in the Information as the basis for the penalty of death.
• Section 8, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires that every Information state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. Applied to hold that the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not alleged in the Information, could not be appreciated to enhance the penalty.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides that in cases where the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua instead of death.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concurred.