People vs. Librando

The testimony of a child witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even without corroboration, and the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated absent proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Furthermore, when actual living expenses are not proven, net income for computing loss of earning capacity is estimated at 50% of gross annual income.

On December 11, 1996, Edwin Labandero, his eight-year-old daughter Aileen, and a relative, Fernando de los Santos, were traversing a hilly trail leading to Barangay Purok Maisan, Don Salvador Benedicto, Negros Occidental, when they encountered appellants Raelito Librando, Larry Surdillas, and Eddie Purisima. Raelito inquired about Fernando's whereabouts and, without warning, struck Edwin with a piece of wood. Eddie Purisima followed with a blow. Edwin fled but was chased by Raelito. All three men took turns hitting Edwin with pieces of wood until he fell and died. Aileen witnessed the attack, illuminated by her father's lighted torch, which continued to burn even after it fell to the ground. Fernando took Aileen and reported the incident to the barangay authorities.

• The Incident: On December 11, 1996, Edwin Labandero, his daughter Aileen, and relative Fernando de los Santos encountered appellants on a trail. Raelito Librando asked Edwin about Fernando's whereabouts and, without warning, hit Edwin with a piece of wood. Eddie Purisima delivered another blow. When Edwin ran, Raelito chased him. The three men took turns hitting Edwin with pieces of wood until he fell and died. Aileen clearly identified the assailants because Edwin was carrying a lighted torch that provided illumination even after falling to the ground.
• Medical Findings: The postmortem examination revealed multiple severe head injuries, including open fractures at the occipito-parietal area and extensive brain lacerations. The cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage secondary to brain laceration. The examining physician did not discount the possibility that the injuries were inflicted by more than one person.
• Investigation and Identification: The following day, Raelito voluntarily surrendered to the police, while Eddie and Larry were invited for questioning. During a police line-up, PO2 Sereno Dencing testified that Aileen positively identified Raelito, Larry, and Eddie by their nicknames. A defense witness, Elpidio Tranilla, claimed Aileen pointed to all six men in the line-up during two attempts.
• Defense Version: Raelito Librando claimed Edwin attacked him first with a piece of wood after Raelito refused to lend him money; Raelito claimed he merely defended himself and stopped only when Edwin could no longer stand. Eddie Purisima and Larry Surdillas corroborated this, claiming they fled when Edwin attacked Raelito. Both denied Aileen was present during the incident.

• Accused-appellants Larry Surdillas and Eddie Purisima argued that they did not participate in the killing, emphasizing that only Raelito admitted responsibility, they had no motive to assault Edwin, the police blotter named only Raelito, and only one piece of wood was recovered at the scene.
• Accused-appellants contended that Aileen failed to identify them during the police line-up, pointing to defense witness Tranilla's testimony that the child pointed to all six men in the lineup.
• Accused-appellant Raelito Librando argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder instead of homicide and in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender in his favor.

• The prosecution maintained that Aileen positively identified all three accused as taking turns hitting the victim, and that her testimony was credible and sufficient for conviction.
• The prosecution argued that motive is irrelevant when the accused have been positively identified.
• The prosecution contended that unlawful aggression, a requisite for self-defense, was absent because Aileen testified that Raelito delivered the first blow without warning.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the RTC erred in finding that accused Larry Surdillas and Eddie Purisima participated in the killing of Edwin Labandero.
  • Whether the RTC erred in failing to hold accused Raelito Librando guilty of homicide only and in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender in his favor.
  • Whether the award for loss of earning capacity was correctly computed.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Participation of Larry and Eddie: The Court ruled that the RTC did not err. The positive identification by the child witness Aileen, who had clear illumination from a lighted torch, prevails over the self-serving denials of the accused. The police blotter itself noted that "three persons" were involved in the killing. The lack of motive is immaterial when there is positive identification. The Court gave greater weight to PO2 Dencing's testimony that Aileen positively identified the accused in the line-up over the defense witness's claim, citing the presumption that police officers perform their duties regularly.
  • Crime Committed and Mitigating Circumstances: The Court ruled that Raelito is guilty of murder. Incomplete self-defense was not appreciated because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; Aileen testified that Raelito delivered the first blow without warning. Furthermore, the severity of the victim's injuries and the lack of evidence of injuries on Raelito, who was of bigger build, belied his claim of self-defense. Voluntary surrender was already properly appreciated by the trial court. The crime was qualified by abuse of superior strength, with nighttime and uninhabited place considered as one aggravating circumstance pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
  • Damages: The Court modified the award for loss of earning capacity. The trial court used an estimated net yearly income without proper basis. The Supreme Court applied the standard formula: Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 - age at death) x (Gross Annual Income - 50% for living expenses). Given the victim was 36 years old with a gross annual income of ₱45,000.00, and in the absence of proof of living expenses, 50% was deducted. The loss of earning capacity was increased from ₱293,000.00 to ₱659,992.50.

• Competency of Child Witnesses — Any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if they can perceive, and perceiving, make known their perception to others, and are capable of relating truthfully facts for which they are examined. The child's competence rests on: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection; and (c) capacity of communication.
• Positive Identification vs. Motive — Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is suspect. When the accused are positively identified, the lack of motive is immaterial.
• Incomplete Self-Defense — To avail of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense (complete or incomplete) cannot be appreciated.
• Concurring Aggravating Circumstances — If the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place concur in the commission of the crime, they constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule, unless their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.
• Loss of Earning Capacity Formula — Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 - age at death) x (Net Income). In the absence of proof showing the deceased's living expenses, net income is estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income.

• "Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies."
• "Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is suspect."
• "To avail of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self defense, there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim."
• "In the absence of proof showing the deceased’s living expenses, however, net income is estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income."

• People vs. Santos, 91 Phil 320 [1952] — Followed regarding the rule that nighttime and uninhabited place, when concurring, constitute only one aggravating circumstance unless their elements distinctly reveal a greater degree of perversity.
• Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. CA, 31 SCRA 511 [1970] — Followed regarding the formula for computing loss of earning capacity based on life expectancy and net income.
• People vs. Malazarte, 261 SCRA 482 [1996] — Followed regarding the principle that motive is immaterial when the accused is positively identified.
• People vs. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19 [1996] — Followed regarding the sufficiency of a single witness's positive and credible testimony to sustain a conviction.
• People vs. Nang, 289 SCRA 16 [1998] — Followed regarding the competency of child witnesses and the criteria therefor.
• People vs. Aspiras, G.R. No. 121203, April 12, 2000 — Followed regarding the estimation of 50% of gross annual income as living expenses when actual living expenses are unproven.

• Revised Penal Code, Article 11 — Cited regarding justifying circumstances, specifically the requisite of unlawful aggression for self-defense.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 13 — Cited regarding mitigating circumstances, specifically voluntary surrender and incomplete self-defense.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 14 — Cited regarding aggravating circumstances, specifically nighttime and uninhabited place.
• Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 36 — Implicitly applied regarding the competency of witnesses, requiring capacity to perceive and perceiving, make known their perception to others.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ.