G.R. No. 140006-10 April 20, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROLLY PAGADOR, accused-appellant.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
ROLLY PAGADOR was charged with two (2) counts of murder for
hacking of death the spouses Herminigildo and Magdalena Mendez,1 and with three
(3) counts of frustrated murder for the physical injuries sustained by Shirley
Mendez, Rosalinda Mendez and Emily Mendez-Castro.2
The spouses Herminigildo and Magdalena Mendez were poor but hardworking
peasants of Alaminos, Pangasinan. The elderly couple had to toil long and hard
in the fields to support their seven (7) children. Ricardo, the eldest and only son, was an invalid; Emily
was married; and, with the exception of Shirley who was only ten (10) years
old, their other daughters, Nenita, Josephine, Marlyn, and Rosalinda, were of
marrying age although still single. Among their children, Nenita was
fated to introduce to the family the man who was to cause the untimely death of
the couple and bring untold sufferings to the surviving members of the family.
Accused Rolly
Pagador and Nenita Mendez were sweethearts for more than two (2) years.
Although the accused was a mere
tricycle driver Nenita's
family had no objection to their relationship; in fact they allowed him to drop
by their house anytime and spend the night with her. He was treated like a
member of the family such that he would visit the Mendez household even at 1:00
o'clock or 2:00 o'clock in the morning.
On 12
October 1996, at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, Nenita and her sisters
Emily, Josephine and Rosalinda were awakened by shouts coming from their
parents' room. It was their mother Magdalena shouting, "Aray ko! Aray
ko!" Thinking that their mother was again having another bout with her
perennial ailment, they hurriedly rushed to her room. Emily was first to
reach the room, followed by Josephine, then Nenita, and finally, Rosalinda. They were shocked to see accused
Rolly Pagador stabbing their mother with a bolo at the back with two (2) hands
holding the bolo.
The accused was kneeling behind their mother as he continuously stabbed her who was
already slumped on the floor with her legs outstretched. Their ten (10)-year
old sister Shirley was clutching her wounded stomach while lying on their
mother's lap. Their father Herminigildo was sprawled motionless on the floor.
Quite instinctively, the four (4) sisters approached their mother in an attempt
to repulse the assailant but the latter swung his bolo at them, cutting Emily's
left index finger in the process. Forthwith, Emily rushed back to her room,
picked up her sleeping child and jumped out of the window.
Meanwhile,
Nenita cried out, "Rolly! Rolly!" but the accused swung his bolo in
silent rage. Nenita retreated from the room and, like her sister Emily, jumped
out of the window. As she reached the ground, Nenita hid behind a tamarind
tree. Moments later she saw the accused passing by still wielding his bolo.
Fearing that she would be discovered, she removed her white dress and crawled
towards a group that was making charcoal. As she went near them, she put on her
clothes and pleaded to them for help. Unfortunately, no one could extend any
assistance to Nenita, much less to any of the Mendezes, as everyone was too
afraid to confront the rampaging lothario.
According to Josephine, like her sisters, she rushed to her
parents' room when she heard the anguished cries of her mother. There she saw
her father lying motionless on the floor, while her younger sister Shirley was
clutching her bleeding stomach. On bent knees the accused repeatedly stabbed
their mother at the back. Josephine immediately recognized Rolly Pagador as the
assailant because the room was well lighted by a kerosene lamp. Together with
her other sisters, she tried to approach the accused but the latter menacingly
swung his bolo at them hitting her forefinger. She retreated to her room and
jumped out of the window.
Among the four (4) sisters, Rosalinda bore the brunt of
Rolly's fury. She narrated that she was the last one to leave her parents' room. As she escaped to her
own room, Rolly went after her and violently pulled her hair causing her to
fall down. The accused sat astride on her stomach and furiously hacked and
stabbed her. As he directed the bolo at her face, Rosalinda held the blade of the
bolo and deflected the thrust to her left side. The accused made several more
thrusts with the bolo hitting her on the right ear, left breast, left upper
portion of her arm and right thigh. To stop the murderous assault, she played
dead. Apparently the ruse succeeded because the accused thereafter stood up and
escaped through the window. With blood oozing profusely from her numerous
wounds Rosalinda slowly lost consciousness.
Shirley
testified that she was awakened when she felt someone striking her on the
stomach and other parts of the body. She saw the accused swinging a bloodied
bolo at her sisters and saw her lifeless parents on the floor. But she could
not ascertain who was responsible for her wounds although she saw the accused
wielding a bolo.
Dr. Rafael Manaois of the Western Pangasinan District
Hospital testified that Shirley sustained (a) a hacking wound lateral neck on
left; (b) a hacking wound 7 cm. (L) hypochondriac with intestinal evisceration,
i.e., in layman's language, the intestine coming out of the stomach; (c) a
hacking wound 4 cm. Posterolateral aspect distal 3rd arm (L); (d) a hacking
wound 5 cm. Postero-lateral aspect middle third forearm; and, (e) a stab wound
4 cm., back, projecting downward.
Interpreting the Legal Necropsy Examination Report prepared
by Dr. Rafael Quebral on the cadaver of Herminigildo Mendez, Dr. Glorioso Maramba
testified that the deceased suffered the following wounds: (a) a semi-circular
chop wound on the head, nape, left, 3 x 4.5 cm., shallow; (b) a penetrating
stab wound on the inferior portion of the sternum; (c) a blood clot and
unclotted extracted inside the chest cavity; (d) a wound on the thoracic cage
on the posterior aspect; (e) two (2) parallel stabs cut wound, vertical, on
left shoulder anterior aspect x x x cutting off the pectoralis and deltoid
muscles; and, (f) a chop wound on the upper extremity arm. Cause of death was massive
intra-thoracic hemorrhage.
Also, according to Dr. Maramba, the deceased Magdalena Mendez sustained the
following injuries: (a) a stab wound below the scapula; and (b) a wound on the
upper portion of the lumbar region, back, left side, and another wound just
below and slightly lateral directed posteriorly, medially toward the stomach.
Cause of death was massive bleeding inside the abdomen and the thoracic cavity.
Dr. Vicente Tongson, Jr., Medical Officer III of the Western
Pangasinan District Hospital, testified that he examined and treated Rosalinda Mendez and Emily
Mendez. He noted in his medico-legal report that Rosalinda sustained about fourteen (14) hacked
wounds on different parts of her body; (a) right thigh; (b) left
shoulder muscle; (c) wound immediately below wound number 2; (d) left hand
between the left thumb and the index finger; (e) right mandible on the right ear;
(f) left forearm third or left wrist; (g) left index finger; (h) below the
nipple between the 7th and 8th ribs; (i) below the ear; (j) base of the neck;
(k) left shoulder; (l) right shoulder at the back; (m) upper back; and, (n)
back of the nape.
Likewise, the medico-legal examination by Dr. Tongson on Emily Mendez yielded (a)
an amputated index finger, third left hand; and (b) a lacerated wound on the
fourth (4th) finger, third left hand.
Accused Rolly
Pagador denied all the accusations against him. He narrated that on the night of 11 October 1996 he had
just finished his work as a tricycle driver when he decided to drop by the
house of his girlfriend Nenita Mendez. When he arrived at the Mendez'
residence, he met Nenita's father Herminigildo and casually greeted him as was
his habit. Herminigildo told him that Nenita was already asleep.
Rolly
was taken aback by the sudden change in the old man's attitude towards him.
Nenita had been his fiancée for more than two (2) years and her family was used
to his visits even at the most ungodly hours. But, ignoring Herminigildo's
acerbic remark, he tried to go to Nenita's room but Herminigildo blocked his
way and tried to push him out of the house. Herminigildo then went inside
Nenita's room and when he reappeared moments later he was already armed with a
bolo. Without warning Herminigildo hacked him but the accused deftly dodged the
blow. According to the accused, he kicked the kerosene lamp and dashed towards
the room of Herminigildo where the latter's wife Magdalena was sleeping.
When
the accused reached the room of the Mendez couple, Magdalena was already awake.
Imploringly, he asked Magdalena why her husband was acting the way he did.
Before she could answer, Herminigildo barged into the room and hacked his wife
believing it was the accused. The accused grappled with Herminigildo for
possession of the bolo and succeeding, he boloed the deceased causing the
latter to fall face down. He denied having caused the injuries suffered by
Shirley and surmised that she might have been wounded during the struggle.
Further
the accused narrated that the sisters Emily, Nenita, Josephine and Rosalinda
arrived and upon seeing their lifeless father, the four (4) women furiously
manhandled him. Some kicked him while the others pulled his hair. When he
noticed that Rosalinda was trying to take hold of the bolo, he wrested it from
her and swung it at the four (4) enraged women never knowing whether anyone was
hit. After the women took flight, he ran out in pursuit of Nenita but she was
nowhere to be found. He further claimed that while detained at the municipal
jail, he gathered reports from Nenita's relatives that Herminigildo had already
committed Nenita to marry a certain seaman which, according to him, explained
the hostile treatment he received from the deceased father.
The trial
court found the accused guilty in all five (5) cases charged against him.
Specifically, he was convicted
of frustrated murder on two (2) counts committed individually against Shirley
and Rosalinda and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion temporal or twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years; another penalty of
arresto mayor for the crime
of frustrated murder against Emily Mendez-Castro; and, murder on two (2) counts
committed individually against the spouses Herminigildo and Magdalena Mendez
for which the accused was meted the supreme penalty of death for each count.3
In finding the accused Rolly Pagador guilty as charged, the
trial court said –
In short, the accused would want to foist before this
(Honorable Court the justifying circumstance of killing by way of self-defense,
availing of Art. 11, Par. 1, (RPC) x x x x
What the Court cannot understand was, the insistence of the
accused to enter the room of Nenita since they are (sic) merely sweethearts.
Assuming arguendo that the deceased blocked his way when he persisted to enter
Nenita's room, this does (sic) not constitute unlawful aggression on the part
of the deceased as the latter had the perfect right to allow or not the entry
of persons in his house; that if there was unlawful aggression, it was not the
deceased who committed the unlawful aggression, but the accused x x x x
If it is true that the accused stabbed the deceased in order
to defend himself, it defies reasons why the accused have (sic) to stab the
deceased several times inflicting wounds on the chest, left shoulder, arm,
nape, infra-scapular region x x x x4
On automatic
review, accused-appellant laments the failure of the trial court to give weight to his plea
of self-defense in the light of his unrebutted testimony that
established the elements of this justifying circumstance. In support of his
contention, he insists that the following facts have been sufficiently
established: (a) Although not yet married to Nenita, he had already been going
to their house, and often slept there; (b) If he had a bolo and the intention
to kill the deceased spouses, he would have right then and there, at the ground
floor of the two-storey house, first killed Herminigildo Mendez, who met him at
the door. The fact is undisputed that Herminigildo died inside his own bedroom
where his wife and youngest daughter Shirley were sleeping; (c) It was the
deceased Herminigildo who was in fact the aggressor when he struck him with a
bolo but accidentally hit his own wife; and, (d) Even more enraged, the
deceased Herminigildo assaulted him more aggressively leaving him with no other
choice but to disable him with the deceased's own weapon.
We do not agree. In light of the established evidence, accused-appellant's
insistence on his incredible story is like forcing a square peg into a round
hole. We are confounded how he could possibly invoke self-defense in view of
the contrary findings of the medico-legal officers and the credible testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses.
We do not believe accused-appellant's claim that
Herminigildo was killed when he overpowered and hacked him (Herminigildo) with
his own bolo during their fatal encounter. The multiplicity and nature of the
injuries inflicted on the deceased belie his claim. Herminigildo suffered stab wounds on the chest,
left shoulder, arm, nape, and other portions of his body while Rolly emerged
unscathed. He suffered no lacerations or even abrasions despite his
supposed vicious encounters not only with the armed Herminigildo but also with
four (4) enraged women. A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably
appreciated where it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent
evidence, but also extremely doubtful by itself.5
Self-defense
as a justifying circumstance must fail where unlawful aggression on the part of
the person injured or killed was not properly established. According to
accused-appellant, when Herminigildo Mendez barged into the room and
accidentally struck his wife with a bolo, accused-appellant after a brief
scuffle took possession of the weapon and hacked the deceased. At this point,
it cannot be claimed that unlawful aggression existed. Granting that unlawful
aggression initially existed, the same ceased as soon as the danger on the life
and limb of accused-appellant vanished when he wrested the bladed weapon from
the deceased.
Accused-appellant's testimony that Magdalena was
accidentally boloed by her husband hitting her on the back is adverse to the
testimonies of the four (4) prosecution witnesses where they said that
accused-appellant repeatedly stabbed their mother at the back. The autopsy report showing
that the deceased Magdalena Mendez sustained several hacking wounds could not in any way be
characterized as accidental. Her wounds were more indicative of a
deliberate and resolute attempt by the perpetrator to snuff out her life. The
nature and number of wounds are constantly and unremittingly considered
important indicia which disprove the plea of self-defense.6
Accused-appellant now bewails his conviction for triple
frustrated murder notwithstanding the absence of any clear showing of any
intent on his part of kill the three (3) private offended parties. He does not
deny that he hurt Emily
and Rosalinda but their injuries were not fatal. Intent to kill was not in his heart. As for
Shirley, he emphatically stated that he never laid a hand on her. As far as he
was concerned, Shirley was
wounded when he and Herminigildo struggled for the possession of the bolo and
fought each other to death.
The pivotal issue is to determine whether the court a quo
correctly convicted accused-appellant of three (3) counts of frustrated murder.
Let us examine the factual backdrop of each case.
As regards Rosalinda, we gather from her testimony that when
she rushed out of her parent's room, accused-appellant stood up and chased her.
Overtaking her, accused-appellant pulled her hair back which caused her to
stumble. He sat on her stomach and tried to hack her on the face but she gripped
the bolo with her two (2) hands. But her assailant pulled the bolo from her
hands and hit her successively on the right ear and other parts of her body. If
only to stop the relentless assault, Rosalinda pretended to be dead. Before
finally abandoning his quarry, Rolly swung the bolo for the last time and hit
her on the thigh. Going by the evidence for the prosecution, we agree with the
finding of the court a quo that accused-appellant is guilty of frustrated
murder against Rosalinda Mendez as charged.7 Accused-appellant had already
performed all the acts of execution which tended to produce the death of
Rosalinda but failed to cause her death by reason independent of his own free
will. We observe that when the perpetrator stood up and left the crime scene it was on the belief that
he had consummated his heinous act, not suspecting that Rosalinda was merely
feigning death. In other words, the subjective phase had already been passed. On
this point, the ruling in People v. Eduave is appropriate - 8
The
subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime included
between the act which begins the consummation of the crime and the last act
performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime. From the time forward, the phase is objective. It may also
be said to be that period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he
has control that period between the point where he begins and the point where
he voluntarily desists. If between these two points the offender is stopped by
reason of any cause outside of his voluntary resistance, the subjective phase
has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues
until he performs the last act, it is frustrated.
With respect to Shirley and Emily, we are of the opinion
that the court a quo incorrectly convicted accused-appellant of frustrated
murder in both cases.9 Prosecution witnesses Josephine and Rosalinda Mendez
testified that when they entered the room of their parents, they saw accused-appellent
Rolly Pagador stabbing their mother Magdalena, while Shirley who was lying on
the lap of her mother was holding her bleeding stomach. Both witnesses
disaffirmed having seen the person responsible for the injuries suffered by
Shirley although they were certain it was accused-appellant as there was no
other stranger in the house swinging a bolo and who could have done it.
The
principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide, or murder,
is the intent on the part of the assailant to take the life of the person
attacked. Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude
every possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor. Although
we can safely assume that the injuries sustained by Shirley were inflicted by
accused-appellant, the factual environment of the case is inconclusive as to
whether he was impelled to injure Shirley purposely to kill her. Even Shirley
stated that she was awakened when someone struck her and she felt excruciating
pain in her stomach. In short, no one except probably accused-appellant could
shed light on the circumstances which led to the wounding of Shirley, but this
notwithstanding, the onus probandi lies not on accused-appellant but on the
prosecution. The inference that the intent to kill existed should not be drawn
in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove this fact beyond reasonable
doubt.10 When such intent
is lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime is not frustrated murder but
physical injuries only – less serious physical injuries in the present case
considering the medico-legal's expert opinion that the wounds sustained by
Shirley would require medical attendance of more than two weeks or more than
fourteen (14) days.11
In the same vein, we cannot also conclude with certainty
that the injuries inflicted on Emily were the result of the murderous intent of
accused-appellant. Emily testified that as she approached her mother,
accused-appellant swung his bolo, cutting her left index finger and lacerating
her left ring finger. Accused-appellant did not pursue her as she ran out of
the room and jumped out of the window. Apparently, his purpose was merely to drive away the four
(4) sisters and dissuade them from attacking him. Thus, in evaluating
the circumstances of the case, we fail to find any trace of intent or inclination on the part of
accused-appellant to kill Emily ever mindful that in criminal cases there is no
room for conjectures as the quantum of proof required must be beyond reasonable
doubt. From the cold facts of the case, the crime committed against Emily was
not frustrated murder but only serious physical injuries.
We are quite perplexed as to how the lower court arrived at
the "appropriate" penalties considering that it never discussed the
modifying circumstances. The answer is left for us to discover. We therefore
reiterate that judges must strive to be more thorough in crafting their
decisions always conscious of the constitutional injunction that decisions must
state the facts and the law upon which they are based. This assumes infinite
significance in the present case given the gravity of the offenses involved.
As regards the modifying circumstances, we find that while
the Decision can be sustained insofar as the killing of Herminigildo Mendez
could not be an act of self-defense, its conclusion as to the existence of a
qualifying circumstance, presumably treachery, raises a doubt not altogether
fanciful.12 Treachery as a
qualifying circumstance may not be deduced from mere presumptions. The fact
that accused-appellant employed ways and means in the execution of the crime
tending directly and especially to ensure it must be proved with convincing
evidence. Treachery cannot be appreciated against accused-appellant because
there is no showing whatsoever that he adopted a mode of attack to ensure his
safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party. It was
established that when the prosecution witnesses entered the room of their
parents, their father Herminigildo was already lying on the floor bloodied and
lifeless. In short no one saw the actual killing. In the absence of any
witness, the manner and mode of attack employed by accused-appellant could not
be established with certitude. For this, the killing of Herminigildo Mendez should
only be considered as homicide, not murder.13
We
cannot however similarly conclude with respect to the killing of Magdalena
Mendez. Evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly showed that
accused-appellant repeatedly stabbed the unarmed victim who was all the time
shielding and protecting her wounded child Shirley. The defenseless victim
could not possibly put up any retaliatory or defensive measure against the
onslaught of the attacker's fury. In view hereof, treachery was properly
appreciated and the killing was correctly classified as murder.
Incidentally, the Information in Crim. Case No. 3285-A
alleges treachery, evident premeditation and nighttime. Technically, we cannot appreciate nighttime
since the same is absorbed by treachery. Neither can we justify any
finding of evident premeditation in the absence of proof that accused-appellant
had clung to a determination to eliminate Magdalena Mendez. Therefore, it
cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and the killing to allow accused-appellant to overcome the
resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its warnings. Thus the
murder of Magdalena was not attended by any other modifying circumstance.
As regards the killing of Herminigildo Mendez, a victim of
homicide, the penalty under Art. 249 of The Revised Penal Code is reclusion
temporal, the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years. Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime14 and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the
imposable penalty shall be taken from the maximum period of reclusion temporal,
which is seventeen (17) years four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree,
which is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years, in any of its period.
The penalty for murder under Art. 248 of The Revised Penal
Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Parenthetically, Art. 63, 2nd par.,
provides that "in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed
of two (2) indivisible penalties the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof: x x x x 2. (W)hen there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be
applied."15 Thus, the imposable penalty being composed of two (2)
indivisible penalties, and there being no modifying circumstance, the lesser
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on accused-appellant for the
killing of Magdalena Mendez.
The less serious physical injuries suffered by Shirley
Mendez is defined under Art. 265 of The Revised Penal Code which provides that
"(A)ny person who inflicts upon another physical injuries not described as
serious physical injuries but which shall incapacitate the offended party for
labor for ten (10) days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the
same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor."
As regards the frustrated murder of Rosalinda Mendez, the
penalty one (1) degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is
reclusion temporal, shall be imposed pursuant to Art. 250 of The Revised Penal
Code in relation to Art. 50 thereof. In the absence of any modifying
circumstance,16 the maximum penalty to be imposed shall be taken from the
medium period of the imposable penalty, which is reclusion temporal medium,
while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which
is prision mayor in any of its periods.
The offense for the physical injuries inflicted on Emily
Mendez is properly classified as serious physical injuries under Art. 263 of
The Revised Penal Code which states that "(A)ny person who shall wound,
beat, or assault another shall be guilty of serious physical injuries,"
and par. 3 thereof provides that "the penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence the person injured injured shall
have become deformed, or shall have lost any part of his body, or shall have
lost the use thereof." Complaining witness Emily Mendez lost her left
index finger by amputation as a result of the crime, and appreciating treachery
as an aggravating circumstance,17 evident premeditation although alleged but
not having been proved, the imposable penalty shal be prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods the range of which is six (6) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years and two (2) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the minimum shall be taken from the minimum of the imposable penalty,
which is six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year eight (8) months and
twenty (20) days, and the maximum shall be taken from its medium period, which
is one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days, to two (2) years
eleven (11) months and ten (10) days.
The real motive that triggered the commission of such
hideous crimes appears stashed somewhere in the confused mind of
accused-appellant. Indeed, it is not unlikely that fierce jealousy, as he
himself hinted, may have unleashed his demonic, infernal frenzy. For, truly,
intense love can evoke not only the most noble of sentiments but also even the
basest of man's passions. Nonetheless, motive in the instant case is now
inconsequential in view of the positive identification of accused-appellant by
the prosecution witnesses who saw and clearly demonstrated how he perpetrated
the gruesome transgressions of the law.
The complexity and variance in the offenses committed
against the five (5) members of the Mendez family in contrast with the lower
court's sweeping conviction for murder and frustrated murder betray a glaring
disregard for the varying legal implications and the actual peculiarities of
accused-appellant's varied criminal acts. Judges, who are called upon to
administer the law and apply it to the facts, should be studious of the
principles of the law and diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts. They
are in the frontline of the sacred task of dispensing justice to all; hence, a
dispassionate, assiduous and devoted discharge of their duties is demanded of
them at all times.
WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan is MODIFIED as
follows:
In G.
R. No. 140006 (Crim. Case No. 3284-A), accused-appellant Rolly Pagador is found
guilty of Homicide (instead of Murder as found by the trial court) and I
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years four (4)
months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal maximum, as
maximum, and to pay the heirs of Herminigildo Mendez the amounts of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 for moral damages;
In G.
R. No. 140007 (Crim. Case No. 3285-A), accused-appellant is found guilty of
Murder (as likewise found by the trial court) and is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Magdalena Mendez the
amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 for moral
damages;
In G.
R. No. 140008 (Crim. Case No. 3286-A), accused-appellant is found guilty of
Less Serious Physical Injuries (instead of Frustrated Murder as found by the
trial court) and is sentenced to suffer a straight prison term of four (4)
months and ten (10) days of arresto mayor maximum;
In G.R.
No. 140009 (Crim. Case No. 3287-A), accused-appellant is found guilty of
Frustrated Murder and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8)
years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as minimum, to
sixteen (16) years two (2) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal
medium as maximum; and
In G.R.
No. 140010 (Crim. Case No. 3288-A, or CA-G.R. CR No. 23485, erroneously numbered
G.R. NO. 143934), accused-appellant is found guilty of Serious Physical
Injuries (instead of Frustrated Murder as found by the trial court) and is
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) months and twenty (20)
days of the minimum period of prision correccional minimum and medium, as
minimum, to one (1) year ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of the medium
period of prision correccional minimum and medium, as maximum.
Consequently,
G.R. No. 143934, which came from the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CR No. 23485
after it was erroneously elevated thereto, is now disregarded it being a mere
duplication of G.R. No. 140010. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon,
Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
