8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 153

People vs. Delos Santos

*
G.R. No. 135919. May 9, 2003.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DANNY

DELOS SANTOS Y FERNANDEZ, appellant.

Criminal Law; Witnesses; Settled is the rule that when it

comes to the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts generally do
not overturn the findings of trial courts.—The first assigned error
involves a determination of the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. Settled is the rule that when it comes to credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts generally do not overturn the findings
of trial courts. The latter are in a best position to ascertain and
measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their
actual observation of the witnesses’ manner of testifying,
demeanor and behavior in court.
Same; Same; 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.—
Appellant argues that since the prosecution witnesses testified
that there was no altercation between him and Flores, it follows
that no motive to kill can be attributed to him. This is an
inconsequential argument. 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 People vs. Galano, we ruled that 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. In the case before
us, no such doubt exits as De Leon and Tablate positively
identified appellant.
Same; Same; 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.—In a last-ditch attempt to cast doubt on the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant questions why
their statements were taken only on January 29, 1998 when the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

incident happened on November 6, 1997. 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 to the
witnesses. Thus, in People vs. Dacibar, we held that the initial
reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal
case is of common

_______________

* EN BANC.

154

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

knowledge and has been judicially declared as insufficient to

affect credibility, especially when a valid reason exists for such
hesitance.
Same; Same; Alibis and Denials; 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.—As earlier mentioned,
appellant’s defenses are mere alibi and denial. He testified that at
the time the crime took place, he was in his auntie’s house in
Muson, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. When probed by the trial
court, he categorically stated that the house is only 40 meters
away from the scene of the crime and may be traveled in about
three or five minutes. 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. Certainly, the required impossibility
does not exist here.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—Weighing the evidence of the prosecution vis-à-vis that of
the defense, the scale of justice must tilt in favor of the former.
Time and again, we ruled that positive identification, where
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

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. With marked relevance is the fact
that appellant did not present any evidence to show that the
prosecution witnesses, in testifying against him, have improper
motive.
Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; 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 prosecution was able to establish
that appellant’s attack on Flores was from behind without any
slightest provocation on his part and that it was sudden and
unexpected. This is a clear case of 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. There being treachery, appellant’s conviction for
murder is in order.
Same; Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and
Practice; Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, every Information must state not only the qualifying
but also the aggravating circumstances.—In the imposition of
penalty, we cannot appreciate the aggra-

155

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 155

People vs. Delos Santos

vating circumstance of cruelty considered by the trial court.

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. The aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not
having been alleged in the Information, may not be appreciated to
enhance the liability of appellant.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Br. 21.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1
For automatic review is the Decision dated October 2, 1998
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos, Bulacan,
in Criminal Case No. 3551798, finding appellant Danny
Delos Santos guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty
2
of death.
In the Information dated February 23, 1998, appellant
was charged with murder, thus:

“That on or about the 6th day of November 1997, in the

Municipality of San Jose, Del Monte, Province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, armed with a kitchen knife, with intent
to kill one Rod Flores y Juanitas, with evident premeditation,
treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
stab with the said kitchen knife said Rod Flores y Juanitas,
hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting
upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his death.”
3
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded “not guilty.”
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution
presented Marcelino de

_______________

1 Penned by Judge Cesar M. Solis, Rollo at pp. 123-128.

2 Rollo at p. 2.
3 Records at p. 15.

156

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

Leon, Marvin Tablate, Dr. Benito Caballero and Romeo

Flores as its witnesses. Appellant and Sonny Bautista took
the witness stand for the defense.
Marcelino De Leon testified that at around 8:00 p.m. of
November 6, 1997, he saw Rod Flores drinking “gin” with
Narciso Salvador, Marvin Tablate and Jayvee Rainier at
the latter’s house
4
in Sarmiento Homes, San Jose Del
Monte, Bulacan. As he was about to fetch water from a
nearby
5
faucet, he approached them and borrowed Flores’
cart. While waiting for the cart, he stood across 6Flores who
was then seated and conversing with the group. Suddenly,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

appellant emerged
7
from the back of Flores and stabbed him8
with a knife, making an upward and9 downward thrust.
Flores ran after he was stabbed twice. 10
Appellant pursued
him and stabbed him many times. As 11
a result, Flores’
intestines bulged out of his stomach. Appellant ceased
stabbing Flores only after he saw him dead. Thereafter, he
turned his ire against Jayvee Rainier and chased him.
Fearful for his life, witness De Leon 12hid himself and later
on reported the incident to the police.
Marvin Tablate corroborated De Leon’s testimony. On
crossexamination, Tablate testified that he tried to help
Flores13 by separating him from the appellant who ran
away. He also testified that the latter joined his group at
about 11:00 a.m. and kept on “coming back and forth.”
Dr. Caballero declared on the witness stand that Flores
suffered twenty-one (21) stab wounds in the frontal,
posterior and lateral side of his body, eleven (11) of which
were fatal. Dr. Caballero said it was possible that appellant
was behind14
Flores considering the stab wounds inflicted at
his back. According to the doctor, Flores died because of
“massive external/internal hemorrhages due to

_______________

4 TSN, July 3, 1998 at p. 2; July 1, 1998 at p. 4.

5 TSN, July 1, 1998 at p. 5.
6 Id., at p. 4.
7 TSN, July 3, 1998 at p. 4.
8 Id., at p. 5.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id., at p. 6.
13 Id., at p. 8.
14 TSN, September 21, 1998 at p. 3.

157

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 157

People vs. Delos Santos

multiple stab wounds in the thorax and abdomen

penetrating15 both lungs, heart, stomach, liver, spleen and
intestines.”
Romeo Flores testified that his son Rod Flores was then
working at Vitarich, Marilao,16 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 has receipts in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

amount of P19,l10.00 spent17

for the funeral services and the
cost of the cemetery lot 18and a list of other expenses in the
amount of P35,960.00; and that his family has been
grieving for the loss of a loved one.
Appellant had a different version of the events. He
denied the accusation and declared that on November 6,
1997 at 8:00 p.m., he was in 19his auntie’s house in Muson,
San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, forty (40) meters away from 20
the scene of the crime. He was then fetching water.
Earlier, at about 5:30 p.m., he and Flores met but they did
not greet each other. There was no altercation between
them. Hence, he could not understand why De Leon and
Tablate testified against him.
Sonny Bautista testified that on that particular date and
time, he and appellant were 21
in their auntie’s house in San
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. They watched television up to
8:30 p.m. and then went home. At about 10:00 p.m.,
appellant was arrested. Bautista did not inform the
policemen that they were watching television in their
auntie’s house at the time the crime took place. 22
Neither did
he accompany appellant to the police station.
On October 2, 1998, the trial court rendered a Decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:

“All premises considered, this Court resolves and so holds that the
prosecution has been able to establish the criminal culpability of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Danny delos
Santos is hereby found guilty of the crime of Murder with the
qualifying circumstance of treachery.

_______________

15 RTC Decision at 17, Rollo at p. 124.

16 TSN, September 1, 1998 at p. 8.
17 Id.
18 Records at p. 99.
19 TSN, September 28, 1998 at p. 2.
20 Id., at p. 4.
21 Id., at p. 7.
22 Id., at p. 8.

158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

“In the imposition of the penalty, the Court hereby takes into
account the brutality in the manner by which the life of the victim
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

was taken, and if only to serve as deterrent to others who might

be similarly obsessed, it is believed that the higher of the two
penalties provided should be meted to the accused herein. Absent
any circumstance that would mitigate the severity of his criminal
act and pursuant to Articles 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 6, Republic Act No. 7659, the accused Danny
delos Santos y Fernandez is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of Death by lethal injection.
“Further, the accused is condemned to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased the amount of P50,000.00 for the victim’s death.
Moreover, accused delos Santos is ordered to pay the said heirs of
the deceased Rod Flores the following sums of money:

1. P264,000.00 for loss of earning capacity;

2. P55,070.00 for actual and compensatory damages;
3. P50,000.00 for moral damages;
4. P50,000.00 for exemplary damages.

“With costs against the accused.

“SO ORDERED.”

In his Appellant’s brief, appellant ascribes to the trial court

the following errors:

“I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL

FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE
ALLEGED EYEWITNESSES, AND IN NOT ACQUITTING
ACCUSED-APPELANT ON GROUND OF REASONABLE
DOUBT.

“II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ORDERING

ACCUSEDAPPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE HEIRS OF
VICTIM THE AMOUNT OF P50,000.00 FOR VICTIM’S DEATH;
P264,000.00 FOR LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY; P55,070.00
FOR ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES; P50,000.00
FOR MORAL 23
DAMAGES; AND P50,000.00 FOR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES.”

Appellant contends that there are some inconsistencies

between the testimonies of De Leon and Tablate, the
prosecution witnesses.

_______________

23 Rollo at pp. 47-57.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

159

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 159

People vs. Delos Santos

Also, there is no evidence that he has a motive to kill

Flores. In fact, there was no previous heated argument or
altercation between them. That the prosecution witnesses
executed their sworn statements only after two months
from the commission of the crime raises doubt as to their
credibility. Finally, the evidence for the prosecution failed
to meet the exacting test of moral certainty, hence, the trial
court should not have ordered him to indemnify the heirs of
Flores.
The Solicitor General, in the Appellee’s brief, counters
that: (a) the inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are
minor and do not vitiate the fact that he was the one who
killed Flores; (b) appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial are
worthless since he was positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses; (c) he failed to proffer any
explanation why the prosecution witnesses implicated him;
(d) the crime was aggravated by cruelty because he
“butchered” Flores until his intestines bulged out of his
stomach; and (e) the heirs of Flores are entitled to
indemnification as it has been shown beyond reasonable
doubt that appellant killed him.
The first assigned error involves a determination of the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Settled is the rule
that when it comes to credibility of witnesses, appellate
courts generally do not overturn the findings of trial courts.
The latter are in a best position to ascertain and measure
the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their
actual observation of the witnesses’
24
manner of testifying,
demeanor and behavior in court.
We see no reason to deviate from this rule.
Appellant maintains that there are inconsistencies in
the testimonies of De Leon and Tablate. While De Leon
testified that appellant did not join Flores’ group, however,
Tablate declared that he was drinking “gin” with them at
about 11:00 a.m. De Leon testified that no one assisted
Flores when he was being attacked by appellant. However,
Tablate stated that he attempted to separate Flores from
appellant after the former had sustained two stab wounds.
The first alleged inconsistency is understandable.
Unlike Tablate who was with the group in a drinking
spree, De Leon approached Flores only when he borrowed
the cart from the latter at

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

_______________

24 People vs. Ave, G.R. Nos. 137274-75, October 18, 2002, 391 SCRA
225; People vs. Alfanta, 378 Phil. 95; 320 SCRA 357 (1999).

160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

about 8:00 p.m.25He stayed with Flore’s group only for about
thirty minutes, or up to 8:30 p.m. Thus, he could not have
observed that appellant joined the group earlier, or at
about 11:00 a.m.
The second alleged inconsistency is a minor one that
does not enfeeble the prosecution’s theory that appellant
killed Flores. Evident from De Leon’s testimony is the fact
that he was so shocked in witnessing the gruesome killing
of his companion. With such a state of mind, it would be too
much to demand from him a full recollection of the details
surrounding the event. Many times we have ruled that
inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when
referring only to minor details and collateral matters do
not affect the substance of their declaration,
26
their veracity,
or the weight of their testimony. They only serve to
strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses 27
for they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
What we find important in the case at bar is that the two
prosecution witnesses were one in saying that it was
appellant who stabbed Flores with a knife. We quote the
clear and straightforward account of the incident by De
Leon and Tablate. During cross-examination, De Leon
testified as follows:

“Atty. De la Cruz:
Q You did not see the accused because it was dark in that
place, is it not?
A No, sir, he suddenly appeared from the back of Rod
Flores and started stabbing Rod that is why we were
surprised.
Court:
Q How did the accused thrust the weapon to the victim?
A (Witness demonstrating by making upward, downward
thrust at the back of the victim)
Atty. De la Cruz
Q Where was Rod Flores hit, if you know?
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

A At the back, sir.

Q How many times?
A At first, twice, sir.
Court:
Q That was the time when Rod Flores ran away after
having been stabbed twice.

_______________

25 TSN, July 1, 1998 at p. 5.

26 People vs. Bato, 382 Phil 558; 325 SCRA 671 (2000).
27 People vs. Dando, 382 Phil. 290; 325 SCRA 406 (2000).

161

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 161

People vs. Delos Santos

A Yes, Your Honor.

  x x x      x x x
Court:
Q How did the accused thrust for the second time the
weapon at the back of the victim?
A Both at the back, sir.
  x x x      x x x
Atty. De la Cruz:
Q Was Rod Flores able to ran away?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where were you when Rod Flores was running away?
A We were left behind, sir. I was not able to move
anymore.
Q And was the accused able to reach Flores?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did the accused do?
A Again, he started stabbing at the back, sir.
Q So the stabbing was inflicted at the back of the victim?
A Not all, sir, because
28
he turned him face up and stabbed
him again, sir.”

Tablate’s direct testimony reads:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

“Fiscal Vicente:
  x x x      x x x
Q How did Danny delos Santos stab Rod Flores?
A “Patalikod,” sir.
Q What do you mean?
A Danny delos Santos stabbed Rod Flores at the back, sir.
Q When you said Danny delos Santos stabbed Rod Flores
at the back, are you saying that Danny delos Santos was
at the back of Rod Flores at the time?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many times did the accused stab Rod Flores?
A I saw him stabbed the victim twice, sir. (Witness
demonstrated in downward position as if he was holding
something).
Q What was he holding?
A A knife, sir.
  x x x      x x x

_______________

28 TSN, July 3, 1998 at pp. 5-6.

162

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

Court:
  x x x      x x x
Q Are you sure that when Rod Flores fell to the ground, he
was not able to rise nor was he able to run away?
A He was able to run but then he was drunk and the
accused was able to catch and stab him again, sir.
Q Are you positive to the identity of Danny delos Santos
that he was the one who stabbed Rod Flores?
29
A Yes, sir.”

Appellant argues that since the prosecution witnesses

testified that there was no altercation between him and
Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be attributed to
him. This is an inconsequential argument. Proof of motive

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the

accused is positively identified by an eyewitness
30
and his
participation
31
is adequately established. In People vs.
Galano, we ruled that 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. In the case before us, no such doubt exits as De Leon
and Tablate positively identified appellant.
In a last-ditch attempt to cast doubt on the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses, appellant questions why their
statements were taken only on January 29, 1998 when the
incident happened on November 6, 1997. 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 32
retaliation can have a
paralyzing effect to the witnesses. Thus, in People vs.

_______________

29 TSN, August 17, 1998 at pp. 3-8.

30 People vs. Lozada, G.R. No. 130589, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA 602;
Lack of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction for
such crime when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely
proved. People vs. Quillosa, 382 Phil. 638; 325 SCRA 747 (2000).
31 384 Phil. 206; 327 SCRA 462 (2000).
32 Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get
involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness’ delay
in reporting a crime to the authorities. (People vs. Galido, 383 Phil. 61;
326 SCRA 187 (2000).

163

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 163

People vs. Delos Santos

33
Dacibar, we held 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, especially when a valid reason exists
for such hesitance.
Anent the second error, appellant contends that the trial
court erred in indemnifying the heirs of Flores since his
guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to
state at this point that the evidence for the prosecution
produces moral certainty that appellant is guilty of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

crime charged, hence, should be answerable for all its

consequences.
As earlier mentioned, appellant’s defenses are mere alibi
and denial. He testified that at the time the crime took
place, he was in his auntie’s house in Muson, San Jose Del
Monte, Bulacan. When probed by the trial court, he
categorically stated that the house is only 40 meters away
from the scene of the34crime and may be traveled in about
three or five minutes. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it
must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the
physical impossibility of the presence of the35
accused at the
locus criminis at the time of the incident. Certainly, the
required impossibility does not exist here.
Weighing the evidence of the prosecution vis-à-vis that
of the defense, the scale of justice must tilt in favor of the
former. Time and again, we ruled that 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 36
and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. With marked relevance is
the fact that appellant did not present any evidence to
show that the prosecution witnesses, in testifying against
him, have improper motive.
The prosecution was able to establish that appellant’s
attack on Flores was from 37
behind without any slightest
provocation on his part and that it was sudden and
unexpected. This is a clear case

_______________

33 382 Phil. 618; 325 SCRA 725 (2000).

34 TSN, September 28, 1998 at pp. 4-5.
35 People vs. Tanail, 380 Phil. 646; 323 SCRA 667 (2000).
36 People vs. Jose, 381 Phil. 845; 324 SCRA 196 (2000).
37 People vs. Aquino, 379 Phil. 845; 322 SCRA 769 (2000); People vs.
Lumacang, 381 Phil. 266; 324 SCRA 254 (2000).

164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

of 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
38
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403
38
treacherous. There being treachery, appellant’s conviction
for murder is in order.
However, in the imposition of penalty, we cannot
appreciate the aggravating circumstance of cruelty
considered by the trial court. Pursuant to the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, every Information must state
not only the39 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
40
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 enhance41 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. In this case, the lesser of the two
indivisible penalties shall be imposed, there being neither
mitigating
42
nor aggravating circumstances attending the
crime.
In keeping with the current jurisprudence, the heirs of
Flores are entitled to the43amount of P50,000.00 by way of
civil indemnity ex delicto. As regards the actual damages,
it appears that out of 44the P55,070.00 awarded by the trial
court, only P19,170.00 was actually supported by receipts.
The other amounts were based

_______________

38 People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 128890, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 485.
39 Section 8, Rule 110.
40 People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 144266, November 27, 2002, 393 SCRA
169; People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA
679.
41 Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“ART. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article
246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua to death x x x.”

42 People vs. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 5, 2003, 398 SCRA 673;
Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code; People vs. Piedad, G.R. No.
131923, December 5, 2002, 393 SCRA 488.
43 People vs. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, November 21, 2002, 392 SCRA 326.
44 Records at pp. 99, 100-103.

165

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 165

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

People vs. Delos Santos

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 proof45 and on the best evidence obtainable
to the injured party. In the case at bar, the prosecution
failed to present receipts for the other expenses incurred. 46
Thus, in light of the recent case of People vs. Abrazaldo,
we grant the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages
inasmuch as the proven actual damages is less than
P25,000.00. The moral damages awarded in the amount of
P50,000.00 is affirmed, there being proofs that because of
Flores’ death, his heirs suffered wounded
47
feelings, mental
anguish, anxiety and similar injury. However, we reduce
to P25,000.00 only the48
trial court’s award of P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
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. In the case at bar, the trial
court found that Flores’ annual gross income is P14,400.00
computed at the rate of P1,200.00 a month for twelve (12)
months. From this amount is deducted the necessary and
incidental expenses, estimated at 50%, leaving a balance of
P7,200.00. His net income would then be multiplied by his
life expectancy, using the following formula: 2/3 x 80 25
(age of the victim at time of death). Considering that he
was 25 years old when he died, his life expectancy would be
37. Multiplying the net balance of his annual income by his
life expectancy, the loss of his earning is P266,400.00, thus:

“In computing the life expectancy and loss of earning capacity of a

person the following formula is used:
Life expectancy—
2/3 x (80 - the age of the victim at the time of death)
2/3 x (80 - 25)
2/3 x 55
= 36.66 or 37

_______________

45 People vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 140386, November 29, 2001, 371 SCRA
181; People vs. Suelto, 381 Phil. 351; 326 SCRA 49 (2000); People vs.
Samolde, G.R. No. 128551, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA 632.
46 G.R. No. 124392, February 6, 2003, 397 SCRA 137.
47 People vs. Manlansing, G.R. No. 131736, March 11, 2002, 378 SCRA
685.
48 People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 636.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

166

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

Loss of earning capacity—

net annual income x life expectancy
P7,200 x 37 49
= P266,400.00”

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 2, 1998 of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos, Bulacan, in
Criminal Case No. 3551798, finding appellant Danny delos
Santos y Fernandez guilty of the crime of murder is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that he is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay the heirs of the late Rod Flores y Juanitas the amounts
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,0000.00 as temperate
damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P266,400.00 for loss of earning
capacity.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug,

Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—The defense of alibi cannot succeed in the face

of circumstances pointing to its contrived nature and the
positive identification of the accused by the prosecution
witnesses. (People vs. Balanag, 236 SCRA 474 [1994])
The defense of alibi cannot prevail over, and is worthless
in the face of, positive identification by credible witnesses
that the accused perpetrated the crime. (People vs.
Estrellanes, Jr., 239 SCRA 235 [1994])

——o0o——

_______________

49 People vs. Cabande, 381 Phil. 889; 325 SCRA 77 (2000). People vs.
Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 17, 2003, 399 SCRA 267; See also People
vs. Visperas, Jr., G.R. No. 147315, January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 128, citing
People vs. Laut, G.R. No. 137751, February 1, 2001, 351 SCRA 93.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/17
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 403

167

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c7040fa07315f89df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17