People vs. dela Cruz y Lorenzo

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for parricide when the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and inconsistent with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.

Victoriano dela Cruz y Lorenzo was charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code for the killing of his wife, Anna Liza Caparas-dela Cruz, with whom he was united in lawful wedlock. The crime of parricide requires that a person is killed, that the deceased is killed by the accused, and that the deceased is the spouse of the accused. The key element distinguishing parricide from other killings is the relationship of the offender to the victim, which in this case was established by the accused's own admission that he was married to the victim.

Victoriano dela Cruz y Lorenzo was charged with parricide for the death of his wife, Anna Liza Caparas-dela Cruz, on August 18, 2002, in Malolos, Bulacan. The prosecution and defense presented divergent accounts of the incident.

According to the prosecution, Joel Song testified that between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. on August 18, 2002, he and two others, including Victoriano's aunt, were playing a card game known as tong-its just three to four arms length away from Victoriano's house. While playing, Joel saw Victoriano punching and kicking his wife in front of their house. Victoriano then dragged Anna inside the house by pulling her hair and slammed the door. Joel overheard the couple shouting while inside. Suddenly, Victoriano and Anna came out of the house together with their young daughter, with Victoriano behind Anna, his arms wrapped around her. He asked for Joel's help, and Joel noticed blood spurting out of Anna's mouth. Joel took the couple's daughter and gave her to Victoriano's aunt, then accompanied the couple to the Bulacan Provincial Hospital on board a tricycle, where Anna died. At about 6:30 p.m. the same day, Senior Police Officers 1 Condrado Umali and Eligio Jose went to the hospital for investigation, where Victoriano was turned over to them by the hospital's security guard. The Certificate of Death, prepared by Police Senior Inspector and Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Ivan Richard Viray, showed that Victoriano's wife died of "hemorrhagic shock as a result of a stab wound, trunk." The Medico-Legal Report dated August 21, 2002, revealed hematoma on the frontal region and left orbital region, a penetrating stab wound on the right shoulder region measuring 2 x .5 cm, about 12 cm deep, directed lateralwards and slightly downwards, piercing underlying tissues and muscle and lacerating the upper lobe of the right lungs, with about 2000 cc of blood and blood clots at the thoracic cavity, and a hematoma on the distal 3rd of the left forearm.

Victoriano testified for the defense that at around 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 2002, he came home very drunk from a friend's house. Before he could enter their house, Anna started nagging him, saying, "Hindi ka naman pala namamasada, nakipag-inuman ka pa." He asked her to go inside but she refused, so he slapped her and dragged her inside. Due to Anna's continuous nagging, Victoriano pushed her aside so he could go out of the house; however, she fell on a jalousie window, breaking it in the process. When he helped her stand up, he noticed that her back was punctured by a piece of shattered glass. He brought her outside immediately and asked the help of his neighbors who were playing tong-its nearby. Victoriano admitted that Joel accompanied him and his wife to the hospital, where he was taken into custody by policemen for questioning. It was only the following morning that he learned of his wife's passing. He testified that he does not usually drink, that he consumed hard liquor at the time of the incident, that Anna was not immediately treated in the hospital, that he loved his wife, and that he did not intentionally hurt her.

The RTC convicted Victoriano, and the CA affirmed with modification. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Victoriano claimed that the CA erred in appreciating Joel's testimony, since the latter merely testified on the non-mortal wounds Anna suffered when the couple were outside the house, and that insofar as the actual killing was concerned, Joel's testimony was merely circumstantial. He also averred that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong against his wife, evident from the facts that he carried the injured body of his wife, sought help after the accident, and brought her to the hospital for medical treatment, and that he was very drunk at the time.

• Circumstantial Nature of Testimony: Victoriano claimed that the CA erred in appreciating Joel's testimony, since the latter merely testified on the non-mortal wounds that Anna suffered when the couple were outside the house, and that insofar as the actual killing was concerned, Joel's testimony was merely circumstantial.

• Lack of Criminal Intent: Victoriano averred that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong against his wife, evident from the facts that he carried the injured body of his wife, that he sought help after the accident, and that he brought her to the hospital for medical treatment.

• Intoxication as Mitigating Circumstance: Victoriano asseverated that he was very drunk at the time of the incident and prayed that this mitigating circumstance be appreciated in his favor.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Manifestation intimating that it was no longer filing any Supplemental Brief in support of its position, thereby relying on the findings of the lower courts.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain Victoriano's conviction for parricide beyond reasonable doubt.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident: Whether Victoriano was entitled to the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication: Whether Victoriano was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Yes. The circumstantial evidence satisfied all the requisites for conviction, as there was more than one circumstance, the facts were proven, and the combination of circumstances produced a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident: No. The exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code requires that the person be performing a lawful act with due care; Victoriano's act of physically maltreating his spouse was not a lawful act.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication: No. The defense of intoxication requires proof that the accused took a quantity of alcoholic beverage sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason, and the absence of independent proof that his alcohol intake affected his mental faculties militated against his claim.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court applied the doctrine in People vs. Castillo that conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court identified six circumstances: first, immediately preceding the killing, Victoriano physically maltreated his wife, not merely by slapping her as he claimed, but by repeatedly punching and kicking her; second, it was Victoriano who violently dragged the victim inside their house by pulling her hair; third, in Dr. Viray's Report, Anna sustained injuries in different parts of her body due to Victoriano's acts of physical abuse; fourth, the location and extent of the wound indicated Victoriano's intent to kill the victim, as the Report revealed a fatal stab wound lacerating the upper lobe of her right lung, a vital organ; fifth, as found by both the RTC and the CA, only Victoriano and Anna were inside the house, other than their young daughter; and sixth, the act of carrying the body of a wounded victim and bringing her to the hospital does not manifest innocence, as it could merely be an indication of repentance or contrition. The Court also applied the well-entrenched rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, as the court below was in a position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident: The Court held that for an accident to become an exempting circumstance under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must concur: (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. The Court found that Victoriano's act of physically maltreating his spouse was definitely not a lawful act, and to say otherwise would be a travesty and a gross affront to existing laws on violence against women. The Court quoted the CA's finding that the evidence disclosed that appellant started beating his wife outside their house and was even the one who dragged her inside, which contradicted his theory that he only pushed her to go out of the house to avoid any further quarrel.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication: The Court held that a person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason. The defense must show that the intoxication is not habitual, and not subsequent to a plan to commit a felony, and that the accused's drunkenness affected his mental faculties. The absence of any independent proof that his alcohol intake affected his mental faculties militated against Victoriano's claim.

The Court further held that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, considering that there was neither any mitigating nor aggravating circumstance. The heirs of the victim were entitled to civil indemnity ex delicto of ₱50,000.00, which is mandatory upon proof of the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the accused for such death. Moral damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00 should be awarded even in the absence of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the victim's heirs, because certainly the family suffered emotional pain brought about by Anna's death. However, the Court held that the CA erred when it deleted the award of exemplary damages, as it was fitting that exemplary damages in the sum of ₱30,000.00 be awarded, considering that the qualifying circumstance of relationship is present, this being a case of parricide.

• Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient for Conviction — Direct evidence of the commission of the offense is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusions and finding of guilt. Conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the guilty person. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean the degree of proof excluding the possibility of error and producing absolute certainty; only moral certainty or "that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind" is required.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident (Article 12(4), RPC) — Before an accused may be exempted from criminal liability by the invocation of Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must concur: (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act that causes the injury has to be lawful. An accident is an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences"; it connotes the absence of criminal intent.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication — A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason. The defense must show that the intoxication is not habitual, and not subsequent to a plan to commit a felony, and that the accused's drunkenness affected his mental faculties.

• Parricide (Article 246, RPC) — The crime of parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element in parricide, other than the fact of killing, is the relationship of the offender to the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate, but the testimony of the accused that he was married to the victim, in itself, is ample proof of such relationship as the testimony can be taken as an admission against penal interest.

• "Direct evidence of the commission of the offense is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusions and finding of guilt. Conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the doctrine on circumstantial evidence and its requisites, which the Court applied to sustain Victoriano's conviction.

• "Before an accused may be exempted from criminal liability by the invocation of Article 12 (paragraph 4) of the RPC, the following elements must concur: (1) a person is performing a lawful act (2) with due care, and (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act that causes the injury has to be lawful." — This passage defines the requisites for the exempting circumstance of accident and establishes that the act causing the injury must be lawful, which was the basis for rejecting Victoriano's defense.

• "Victoriano's act of physically maltreating his spouse is definitely not a lawful act. To say otherwise would be a travesty -- a gross affront to our existing laws on violence against women." — This passage articulates the Court's rejection of the accident defense, emphasizing that physical maltreatment of a spouse cannot qualify as a lawful act for purposes of the exempting circumstance.

• "A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason." — This passage states the requirement for the mitigating circumstance of intoxication, which Victoriano failed to satisfy due to the absence of independent proof that his alcohol intake affected his mental faculties.

• People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 215 — Controlling precedent on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conviction, cited for the requisites of circumstantial evidence and the principle that proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty.

• People vs. Velasco, 404 Phil. 369, 379 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that in parricide of a spouse, the testimony of the accused that he was married to the victim is ample proof of the relationship, as it can be taken as an admission against penal interest.

• People vs. Nepomuceno, Jr., 298 SCRA 450, 462 (1998) — Cited for the principle that the act of carrying the body of a wounded victim and bringing her to the hospital does not manifest innocence, as it could merely be an indication of repentance or contrition.

• People vs. Mactal, 449 Phil. 653, 661 (2003) — Cited for the well-entrenched rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.

• People vs. Agliday, 419 Phil. 555, 564 (2001) — Cited for the elements of the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

• People vs. Cortes, 413 Phil. 386, 393 (2001) — Cited for the requirement that a person pleading intoxication must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason.

• People vs. Mondigo, G.R. No. 167954, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 384, 392 — Cited for the requirement that the defense of intoxication must show that the intoxication is not habitual, not subsequent to a plan to commit a felony, and that the accused's drunkenness affected his mental faculties.

• People vs. Español, G.R. No. 175603, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 326, 340; People vs. Paycana, Jr., G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 657, 668; People vs. Ayuman, G.R. No. 133436, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 248, 260; and People vs. Arnante, G.R. No. 148724, October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 155, 161 — Cited collectively for the proposition that exemplary damages should be awarded in parricide cases considering that the qualifying circumstance of relationship is present.

• Article 246, Revised Penal Code — Defines and punishes the crime of parricide, committed by any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The Court applied this provision in affirming Victoriano's conviction.

• Article 12(4), Revised Penal Code — Provides the exempting circumstance of accident, requiring that a person performing a lawful act with due care causes an injury to another by mere accident and without any fault or intention of causing it. The Court held that this provision did not apply because Victoriano was not performing a lawful act when he physically maltreated his spouse.

• Renato C. Corona (Chairperson)
• Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
• Diosdado M. Peralta
• Jose Catral Mendoza