People vs. Obligado

Voluntary surrender is not appreciated where the accused is intercepted by arresting officers on the only route to his residence and therefore had no means of evading arrest; the surrender must be spontaneous and voluntary. In murder, the heirs are entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages in lieu of unsupported actual funeral expenses, and exemplary damages where treachery attended the killing.

Appellant Alejo Obligado y Magdaraog was charged with murder in the RTC of Iriga, Branch 35, under an Information dated June 22, 2000, and pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. On the evening of March 12, 2000, Roberto Bagaporo, the victim Felix Oliveros y Rañada, and several others were having a drinking spree in front of Bagaporo's residence in Barangay de la Fe, Buhi, Camarines Sur. Appellant later joined them. As Bagaporo prepared the videoke machine, he heard the victim call out, "Pinsan!" He turned around and saw appellant standing behind the victim. Appellant grabbed the victim's hair with his left hand and, with his right, pulled out a bolo from underneath his shirt and slashed the victim's neck. Appellant then pushed the victim, who fell face down on the pavement, and walked away.

Around 8:20 p.m. that same day, an unidentified barangay kagawad reported a hacking incident in Barangay de la Fe to the PNP Buhi station. SPO4 Jimmy Jose and several other police officers went to the area and found the victim lying face-down in front of Bagaporo's house. Dr. Breandovin Saez, municipal health officer of Buhi, conducted a post-mortem examination and found two incised wounds, one on the victim's right cheek and another on his neck area extending from the left anterior neck to the right posterior neck. Dr. Saez testified that the neck wound was fatal because it was deep enough to cut the carotid artery and cause massive hemorrhage; based on the size and position of the wound, he opined that the assailant intentionally slashed the victim's neck from behind using a small bolo not more than one foot long.

The victim's widow, Gloria Oliveros, testified that her husband earned at least ₱5,000 per month as a driver. She presented a receipt from the funeral parlor amounting to ₱15,000 and an itemized list of expenses incurred during the wake amounting to ₱12,000.

For his defense, appellant testified that he accidentally killed the victim. While they were drinking, the victim approached him and confided that he had a problem but did not say what it was. Appellant gave the victim a drink. To his surprise, the victim pulled out his bolo from its scabbard. Afraid of what could happen, appellant tried to wrest the bolo but the victim resisted; while they grappled for possession, the victim was fatally slashed in the neck. Apolinario Manaog corroborated appellant's testimony, stating that it was the victim who wielded the bolo and that he and appellant wrestled for its possession.

SPO4 David Sarto, police community officer of the PNP Buhi station, testified that he and fellow police officers were ordered to arrest appellant on March 13, 2000. They met appellant while traversing the lone footpath leading to his residence. Appellant surrendered his person and the bolo. The RTC found the killing intentional based on the size and nature of the victim's wounds; because appellant slashed the victim's neck from behind, the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, and the RTC appreciated treachery.

• Accidental Killing: Appellant asserted that he accidentally killed the victim while they grappled for possession of the bolo after the victim pulled it out from its scabbard.

• Murder and Treachery: Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, with treachery qualifying the killing.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether appellant's surrender to the arresting officers should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• Damages: Whether the heirs of the victim are entitled to civil indemnity, actual or temperate damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and indemnity for loss of earning capacity.

• Murder and Treachery: Yes. The prosecution established intent to kill and treachery beyond reasonable doubt; appellant slashed the victim's neck from behind, depriving him of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
• Voluntary Surrender: No. Appellant was intercepted by arresting officers on the only footpath to his residence and had no means of evading arrest; his surrender was neither voluntary nor spontaneous.
• Damages: Yes, with modifications. The SC awarded ₱75,000 civil indemnity, ₱25,000 temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, ₱50,000 moral damages, and ₱25,000 exemplary damages; loss of earning capacity was denied for lack of documentary evidence.

• Murder and Treachery: The SC affirmed appellant's guilt because the prosecution evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant intended to kill and in fact killed the victim and that he consciously adopted a design which deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. Roberto Bagaporo's eyewitness account placed appellant behind the victim; appellant grabbed the victim's hair and slashed his neck with a bolo. Dr. Breandovin Saez's post-mortem findings confirmed a fatal neck wound that cut the carotid artery and caused massive hemorrhage, and he opined that the assailant intentionally slashed the victim's neck from behind with a small bolo. This supported the RTC's finding of treachery and the conviction for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Voluntary Surrender: The SC applied the requisites for voluntary surrender: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary. Although SPO4 Sarto testified that appellant intimated a desire to surrender, the SC found that the CA erred in appreciating the mitigating circumstance. SPO4 Sarto testified that appellant's residence could be accessed only through a footpath where they met appellant. Because appellant was intercepted by the arresting officers there, he had no means of evading arrest. His surrender was therefore neither voluntary nor spontaneous; he had no option but to yield to the authorities.

• Damages: The SC modified the civil liabilities. It ordered appellant to pay ₱75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto to conform with recent jurisprudence. It denied indemnity for loss of earning capacity despite the widow's testimony that the victim earned ₱5,000 per month as a driver, because such indemnity is not awarded in the absence of documentary evidence except where the victim was either self-employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws; neither was alleged nor proved. On actual damages, the SC applied the rule that only receipted expenses can be the basis of actual damages arising from funeral expenditures. The prosecution presented only a ₱15,000 funeral parlor receipt; since the receipted expenses were less than ₱25,000, the SC awarded ₱25,000 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. It also awarded ₱50,000 as moral damages because moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder without need to allege and prove such damages, and ₱25,000 as exemplary damages because the killing was attended by treachery.

• Voluntary surrender — The mitigating circumstance requires: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary. In this case, appellant was intercepted on the only footpath to his residence, so he had no means of evading arrest; his surrender was neither voluntary nor spontaneous.
• Treachery — The SC affirmed treachery where appellant slashed the victim's neck from behind, consciously adopting a design that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
• Civil indemnity ex delicto — In murder, civil indemnity is awarded to the heirs; the SC set the amount at ₱75,000 to conform with recent jurisprudence.
• Temperate damages in lieu of actual damages — Only receipted expenses can be the basis of actual damages for funeral expenditures; where the receipted expenses are less than ₱25,000, temperate damages of ₱25,000 may be awarded in lieu of actual damages.
• Moral damages in murder — Moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder without need to allege and prove such damages; the SC awarded ₱50,000.
• Exemplary damages — Exemplary damages are awarded where the killing is attended by treachery; the SC awarded ₱25,000.
• Loss of earning capacity — Indemnity for loss of earning capacity is not awarded absent documentary evidence, except where the victim was self-employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage; neither was alleged nor proved, so the claim was denied despite the widow's testimony of ₱5,000 monthly income.

• "The evidence of the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill (and in fact killed) the victim and that he consciously adopted a design which deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, or to retaliate." — This passage states the evidentiary basis for the murder conviction and the treachery finding.
• "For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the defense must prove that: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; (c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary." — This passage lays down the three requisites for voluntary surrender.
• "Inasmuch as he was intercepted by the arresting officers there, appellant had no means of evading arrest. His surrender therefore was neither voluntary nor spontaneous." — This passage applies the requisites and rejects the CA's appreciation of voluntary surrender.
• "Since the receipted expenses of the victim’s family was less than ₱25,000, temperate damages in the said amount can be awarded in lieu of actual damages." — This passage explains why temperate damages replaced actual damages for funeral expenses.

• People vs. Oco, 458 Phil. 815, 851 (2003) — Cited for the requisites of voluntary surrender and for the rule that loss of earning capacity is not awarded absent documentary evidence except for self-employed or daily wage workers.
• People vs. Malolot, G.R. No. 174063, 14 March 2008 — Cited for the ₱75,000 civil indemnity ex delicto.
• People vs. Tio, 404 Phil. 936, 949 (2001) — Cited for the rule that only receipted expenses can be the basis of actual damages for funeral expenditures.
• People vs. Belonio, G.R. No. 148695, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 579, 596 — Cited for the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages where receipted expenses are less than ₱25,000.
• People vs. Bajar, 460 Phil. 683, 700 (2003) — Cited for the rule that moral damages are mandatory in murder without need to allege and prove them.
• People vs. Garin, G.R. No. 139069, 17 June 2004, 432 SCRA 394, 414 — Cited for the award of exemplary damages where the killing is attended by treachery.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder; the SC affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence of reclusion perpetua under this article.