Lawyerly

A. REYES, JR., J.	A. REYES	46 cases
ABAD, J.	ABAD	230 cases
ABAD SANTOS, J.	ABAD SANTOS	2 cases
ALAMPAY, J.	ALAMPAY	1 cases
ANGELES, J.	ANGELES	95 cases
ANTONIO, J.	ANTONIO	7 cases
AQUINO, J.	AQUINO	6 cases
ARAULLO, C. J.	ARAULLO	1 cases
ARELLANO, C. J.	ARELLANO	4 cases
ARELLANO C.J.	ARELLANO C.J.	1 cases
ARRELANO, C.J.	ARRELANO	1 cases
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.	AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ	2 cases
AVACEÑA, J.	AVACEÑA	1 cases
AVANCENA, C.J.	AVANCENA	25 cases
AVANCEÃ'A, C. J.	AVANCEÃ'A	1 cases
AVANCEÑA, C. J.	AVANCEÑA	5 cases
AZCUNA, J.	AZCUNA	333 cases
BARREDO J.	BARREDO	2 cases
BARRERA, J,	BARRERA	1 cases
BAUTISTA, ANGELO, J.	BAUTISTA	1 cases
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J	BAUTISTA ANGELO	1 cases
BAUTISTA AUGELO, J.	BAUTISTA AUGELO	1 cases
BELLOSIILLO, J.	BELLOSIILLO	1 cases
BELLOSILLO , J.	BELLOSILLO	3 cases
BENGZON, J.P., J.	BENGZON	3 cases
BENGZON J.P. J.	BENGZONP.	1 cases
BERSAMIN, C.J.	BERSAMIN	20 cases
BIDIN, J.	BIDIN	172 cases
BOCOBO, J.	BOCOBO	38 cases
BRION, J.	BRION	739 cases
BRIONES, J.	BRIONES	32 cases
BUENA , J.	BUENA	1 cases
BUTTE, J.	BUTTE	113 cases
CAGUIOA, J	CAGUIOA	342 cases
CALLEJO, J.	CALLEJO	1 cases
CALLEJO. SR., J.	CALLEJO. SR.	1 cases
CAMPOS, JR. J.	CAMPOS	4 cases
CAPISTRANO J.	CAPISTRANO	1 cases
CARANDANG, J.	CARANDANG	53 cases
CARPIO, J.	CARPIO	1 cases
CARPIO MORALES, J.	CARPIO MORALES	5 cases
CARPIO-MORALES, J.	CARPIO-MORALES	42 cases
CARSON, J	CARSON	1 cases
CASTRO, J.	CASTRO	3 cases
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.	CHICO-NAZARIO	2 cases
CONCECPION, JR., J.	CONCECPION	1 cases
CONCEPCION, C. J.	CONCEPCION	11 cases
CONCEPCION JR, J.	CONCEPCION JR	1 cases
CONCEPCION JR ., J.	CONCEPCION JR .	1 cases
CONCEPCION JR., J.	CONCEPCION JR.	152 cases
COOPER, .	COOPER	1 cases
CORONA, C.J.	CORONA	5 cases
CORONA., J.	CORONA.	1 cases
CORTES, J.	CORTES	195 cases
CRUZ, J.	CRUZ	3 cases
CRUZ. J.	CRUZ.	2 cases
CUEVAS, J.	CUEVAS	1 cases
DAVIDE, JR., J.	DAVIDE	1 cases
DAVIDE JR., C.J.	DAVIDE JR.	99 cases
DE CASTRO, J.	DE CASTRO	2 cases
DE CASTRO*, J.	DE CASTRO*	1 cases
DE JOYA, J.	DE JOYA	7 cases
DE LA FUENTE, J.	DE LA FUENTE	11 cases
DE LEON, J.	DE LEON	31 cases
DEL CASTILLO, J.	DEL CASTILLO	820 cases
DELOS SANTOS, J.	DELOS SANTOS	44 cases
DIAZ, J,	DIAZ	21 cases
DIOKNO, J.	DIOKNO	1 cases
DIZON, J.	DIZON	1 cases
ELLIOTT, J.	ELLIOTT	13 cases
ENDENCIA, J.	ENDENCIA	85 cases
ERICTA, J.	ERICTA	11 cases
ESCOLIN J.	ESCOLIN	1 cases
ESGUERRA, J.	ESGUERRA	1 cases
FELICIANO, J.	FELICIANO	1 cases
FELIX, J.	FELIX	113 cases
FERIA, J	FERIA	1 cases
FERLA, J.	FERLA	1 cases
FERNAN, C.J.	FERNAN	1 cases
FERNANDEZ, J.	FERNANDEZ	263 cases
FERNANDO, C.J.	FERNANDO	1 cases
FERRAN, C.J.	FERRAN	1 cases
FISHER, J.	FISHER	31 cases
FRANCISCO, J.	FRANCISCO	170 cases
GAERLAN, J.	GAERLAN	19 cases
GANCAYCO J.	GANCAYCO	1 cases
GANGAYCO, J.	GANGAYCO	2 cases
GARCIA, J.	GARCIA	3 cases
GENTLEMEN	GENTLEMEN	1 cases
GESMUNDO, J.	GESMUNDO	75 cases
GODDARD, J.	GODDARD	51 cases
GOMEZ, J.	GOMEZ	10 cases
GONZAGA-REYES, J	GONZAGA-REYES	1 cases
GONZAGA_REYES, J.	GONZAGA_REYES	13 cases
GRINO-AQUINO J.	GRINO-AQUINO	1 cases
GRINO-AQUINO. J.	GRINO-AQUINO.	1 cases
GRIRO-AQUINO J.	GRIRO-AQUINO	1 cases
GRIÑO - AQUINO , J .	GRIÑO - AQUINO	1 cases
GRIÑO AQUINO, J.	GRIÑO AQUINO	5 cases
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.	GRIÑO-AQUINO	1 cases
GRIÑO-AQUINO. J.	GRIÑO-AQUINO.	1 cases
GRIÑO-QUINO, J.	GRIÑO-QUINO	1 cases
GUERRERO, J.	GUERRERO	1 cases
GUITERREZ DAVID, J.	GUITERREZ DAVID	1 cases
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.	GUTIERREZ	1 cases
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.	GUTIERREZ DAVID	152 cases
GUTIERREZ JR., J.	GUTIERREZ JR.	7 cases
GUTIERREZ; JR., J.	GUTIERREZ; JR.	1 cases
HERMOSISIMA, JR. J.	HERMOSISIMA	1 cases
HERNANDO, J	HERNANDO	3 cases
HILADO, J.	HILADO	45 cases
HLLADO, J.	HLLADO	1 cases
HORRILLENO, J.	HORRILLENO	10 cases
HULL, J.	HULL	120 cases
IMPERIAL, J.	IMPERIAL	350 cases
INTING, J.	INTING	109 cases
J. REYES, JR., J.	J. REYES	65 cases
JARANILLA, J.	JARANILLA	9 cases
JARDELEZA, J.	JARDELEZA	127 cases
JOHN, J.	JOHN	3 cases
JOHNS, J.	JOHNS	180 cases
JOHNSON, J.	JOHNSON	1055 cases
JONHS, J.	JONHS	1 cases
JUGO, J.	JUGO	104 cases
KAPUNAN, J	KAPUNAN	1 cases
LABRADOR, J.	LABRADOR	620 cases
LADD, J.	LADD	59 cases
LAUREL, J.	LAUREL	226 cases
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.	LAZARO-JAVIER	138 cases
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, CJ.	LEONARDO-DE CASTRO	7 cases
LEONEN, J.	LEONEN	561 cases
LIBREA-LEAGOGO, C.C., J.	LIBREA-LEAGOGO	1 cases
LOPEZ, J.	LOPEZ	38 cases
MAKALINTAL, C.J.	MAKALINTAL	1 cases
MAKASIAR, J.	MAKASIAR	1 cases
MALCOLM, J.	MALCOLM	430 cases
MAPA, J.	MAPA	288 cases
MARTIN, J.	MARTIN	104 cases
MARTINEZ J.	MARTINEZ	1 cases
MARTIRES, J.	MARTIRES	140 cases
MCDONOUGH, J.	MCDONOUGH	23 cases
MEDIALDEA, J.	MEDIALDEA	1 cases
MELENCIO HERRERA, J.	MELENCIO HERRERA	1 cases
MELENCIO-HERERA, J.	MELENCIO-HERERA	1 cases
MELENCIO-HERERRA, J.	MELENCIO-HERERRA	1 cases
MELENCIO-HERREA, J.	MELENCIO-HERREA	1 cases
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.	MELENCIO-HERRERA	2 cases
MELENCIO-HERRERA. J.	MELENCIO-HERRERA.	2 cases
MELENCIO-HERRRERA, J.	MELENCIO-HERRRERA	1 cases
MELO , J.	MELO	1 cases
MENDOZA J.	MENDOZA	2 cases
MKALINTAL, J.	MKALINTAL	1 cases
MOIR, J.	MOIR	8 cases
MONTEMAYOR, J,	MONTEMAYOR	1 cases
MORAN, C. J.	MORAN	3 cases
MORELAND, J.	MORELAND	435 cases
MUNOZ PALMA, J.	MUNOZ PALMA	11 cases
MUÑOZ PALMA, J.	MUÑOZ PALMA	110 cases
NACHURA, J	NACHURA	1 cases
NARVASA, C.J.	NARVASA	1 cases
NATIVIDAD, J.	NATIVIDAD	15 cases
NAZARIO, J.	NAZARIO	1 cases
NOCON, J.	NOCON	247 cases
NOCON. J.	NOCON.	1 cases
OSTRAND, J.	OSTRAND	380 cases
OZAETA, J.	OZAETA	213 cases
PABLO, J.	PABLO	118 cases
PADILLA, J.	PADILLA	1 cases
PADILLLA, J.	PADILLLA	1 cases
PANGANIBAN	PANGANIBAN	1 cases
PARAS, J.	PARAS	3 cases
PARDO, J.	PARDO	1 cases
PAREDES, J.	PAREDES	277 cases
PATAJO, J.	PATAJO	13 cases
PER CURIAM	PER CURIAM	2 cases
PER CURIAM.	PER CURIAM.	1 cases
PER CURLAM	PER CURLAM	1 cases
PERALTA J.	PERALTA	5 cases
PEREZ, J.	PEREZ	515 cases
PERFECTO, J.	PERFECTO	167 cases
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.	PERLAS-BERNABE	774 cases
PERPECTO, J.	PERPECTO	1 cases
PLANA J.	PLANA	1 cases
PLANA*, J.	PLANA*	1 cases
PUNO, J.	PUNO	1 cases
PURISIMA, J	PURISIMA	4 cases
QUIASON J.	QUIASON	1 cases
QUISUMBING J.	QUISUMBING	1 cases
RE YES, J. B. L., J.	RE YES	1 cases
RECTO, J.	RECTO	35 cases
REGALA, J.	REGALA	227 cases
REGALADO J.	REGALADO	2 cases
RELOVA, J.	RELOVA	3 cases
REYES, A., J	REYES	5 cases
REYES J. B. L., J.	REYES B. L.	3 cases
REYES J.B.L., J.	REYESB.L.	1 cases
ROMERO, J.	ROMERO	492 cases
ROMUALDEZ, J.	ROMUALDEZ	276 cases
RUIZ CASTRO, J.	RUIZ CASTRO	1 cases
SANCHEZ, J.	SANCHEZ	239 cases
SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J.	SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ	4 cases
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.	SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ	4 cases
SANTOS, J.	SANTOS	56 cases
SARMIENTO, J.	SARMIENTO	1 cases
SERENO, C.J.	SERENO	192 cases
SIRS AND MESDAMES	SIRS AND MESDAMES	1 cases
SMITH, J.	SMITH	11 cases
STREET, J	STREET	1 cases
TEEHANKEE, J.	TEEHANKEE	1 cases
TEEHANKEE; J.	TEEHANKEE;	1 cases
TIJAM, J.	TIJAM	201 cases
TINGA J.	TINGA	1 cases
TORRES, J	TORRES	1 cases
TRACEY, J.	TRACEY	113 cases
TRENT, J.	TRENT	273 cases
TUASON, J.	TUASON	293 cases
VASQUEZ, J.	VASQUEZ	51 cases
VELASCO, JR., J.	VELASCO	1 cases
VELASCO JR., J.	VELASCO JR.	473 cases
VICKERS, J.	VICKERS	111 cases
VILLA-REAL J.	VILLA-REAL	24 cases
VILLAMOR, J.	VILLAMOR	261 cases
VILLARAMA, JR., J.	VILLARAMA	363 cases
VILLAREAL, J.	VILLAREAL	1 cases
VITUG , J.	VITUG	2 cases
VLLLAMOR, J.	VLLLAMOR	5 cases
VLTUG, J.	VLTUG	1 cases
WHEREFORE, FINDING THE ACCUSED GERALDO SANTILLAN AND EUGENE BORROMEO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR MURDER, THE COURT HEREBY SENTENCES THEM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA AND ALL THE ACCESSORY PENALTIES ATTACHED THERETO. ACCUSED GERALDO SANTILLAN AND EUGENE BORROMEO ARE LIKEWISE DIRECTED TO PAY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY THE HEIRS OF ERNESTO GARCIA AS FOLLOWS: 1) SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS, AS CIVIL INDEMNITY; 2) SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS, AS MORAL DAMAGES; 3) SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS AS, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; AND 4) TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY FIVE (P27,845.00) PESOS, AS ACTUAL DAMAGES. SO ORDERED.[8] AGGRIEVED, THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ELEVATED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CA. THE CA RULING IN ITS MAY 8, 2015 DECISION, THE CA AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION THE CONVICTION OF GERALDO AND EUGENE. IT HELD THAT ALL THE REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DYING DECLARATION WERE PRESENT IN THIS CASE. IN THE SAME MANNER, THE CA RULED THAT ERNESTO'S DECLARATION COULD ALSO BE ADMITTED AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE BECAUSE WHEN ERNESTO GAVE THE IDENTITIES OF THOSE WHO STABBED HIM TO JULIE ANN, HE WAS REFERRING TO A STARTLING OCCURRENCE. IT ADDED THAT ERNESTO WAS WOUNDED AND BLOOD WAS OOZING FROM HIS CHEST, THUS, HE HAD NO TIME TO CONTRIVE THE IDENTIFICATION OF HIS ASSAILANTS. THE CA OPINED THAT ERNESTO'S UTTERANCE THAT DODONG, EUGENE, RAMIL, AND A CERTAIN "PALAKA" STABBED HIM WAS SPONTANEOUSLY MADE AND ONLY IN REACTION TO THE STARTLING OCCURRENCE. THE APPELLATE COURT EXPLAINED THAT THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH MUST BE APPRECIATED BECAUSE THE ASSAILANTS ENJOYED SUPERIORITY IN NUMBER AND WERE ARMED WITH WEAPONS, WHILE ERNESTO HAD NO MEANS WITH WHICH TO DEFEND HIMSELF. IT DECLARED THAT THE MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT SUPPORTED THE INEQUALITY OF FORCES BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE ASSAILANTS IN TERMS OF NUMBER AND WEAPONS. THE CA NOTED DR. PORCIUNCULA, JR.'S TESTIMONY THAT ERNESTO SUSTAINED MULTIPLE INCISE WOUNDS ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF HIS BODY; THAT THE WEAPON USED WAS A SINGLE BLADED SHARP INSTRUMENT AND IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT MORE THAN ONE WAS USED; AND THAT IT WAS LIKELY THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN ONE ASSAILANT THAT INFLICTED THE STAB WOUNDS.[9] THE CA DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL IN THIS WISE: WHEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DENIED. THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 128 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. C-70393, FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GERALDO SANTILLAN Y VILLANUEVA AND EUGENE BORROMEO Y NATIVIDAD GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AND SENTENCING EACH OF THEM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA, IS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ARE ORDERED TO PAY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY THE HEIRS OF ERNESTO GARCIA THE AMOUNTS OF SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) AS CIVIL INDEMNITY, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) AS MORAL DAMAGES, THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE PESOS (P27,845.00) AS ACTUAL DAMAGES. ACCUSED-APPELLANTS SHALL ALSO PAY INTEREST ON ALL THESE DAMAGES ASSESSED AT THE LEGAL RATE OF SIX PERCENT (6%) PER ANNUM FROM DATE OF FINALITY OF THIS DECISION UNTIL FULLY PAID. SO ORDERED.[10] HENCE, THIS APPEAL. ISSUES I. WHETHER IT WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT GERALDO AND EUGENE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF ERNESTO II. WHETHER ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IN A RESOLUTION,[11] DATED JANUARY 16, 2017, THE COURT REQUIRED THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT THEIR RESPECTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS SIMULTANEOUSLY, IF THEY SO DESIRED. IN THEIR MANIFESTATION (IN LIEU OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF),[12] DATED MARCH 3, 2017, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS MANIFESTED THAT THEY WERE ADOPTING THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF FILED BEFORE THE CA AS THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, FOR THE SAME HAD ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED ALL THE MATTERS PERTINENT TO THEIR DEFENSE. IN ITS MANIFESTATION (RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF),[13] DATED MARCH 15, 2017, THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG) STATED THAT ALL MATTERS AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS HAD ALREADY BEEN ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED IN ITS BRIEF BEFORE THE CA AND MANIFESTED THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF. IN THEIR APPELLANT'S BRIEF, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS SOUGHT A REVERSAL OF THEIR CONVICTION CONTENDING THAT ERNESTO'S STATEMENT, AS RELAYED TO JULIE ANN, WAS INADMISSIBLE AS A DYING DECLARATION OR PART OF RES GESTAE. THEY POSITED THAT ERNESTO WAS INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY HAD HE SURVIVED. ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ADVANCED THE PROPOSITION THAT BECAUSE THE STABBING INCIDENT HAPPENED AT NIGHT, DARKNESS MADE IT IMPROBABLE FOR ERNESTO TO IDENTIFY HIS ASSAILANTS. CONSIDERING THAT NO MORAL CERTAINTY COULD BE HAD AS TO THEIR PARTICIPATION, THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ERNESTO'S DEATH WAS REDUCED TO A MERE POSSIBILITY WHICH WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. FURTHER, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ARGUED THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THEIR PHYSICAL STRENGTH TO ENSURE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME FOR EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE THAT MICHAEL SAW RAMIL AND GERALDO CHASING ERNESTO, SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE DID NOT PROVE THAT THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THEIR PHYSICAL STRENGTH BY SIMULTANEOUSLY ATTACKING THE VICTIM. THE COURT'S RULING THE APPEAL IS PARTLY MERITORIOUS. ERNESTO'S DYING DECLARATION STANDS; LIKEWISE, HIS STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE A DYING DECLARATION, ALTHOUGH GENERALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE DUE TO ITS HEARSAY CHARACTER, MAY NONETHELESS BE ADMITTED WHEN THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES CONCUR, NAMELY: (A) THE DECLARATION MUST CONCERN THE CAUSE AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DECLARANT'S DEATH; (B) AT THE TIME THE DECLARATION IS MADE, THE DECLARANT IS UNDER A CONSCIOUSNESS OF AN IMPENDING DEATH; (C) THE DECLARANT IS COMPETENT AS A WITNESS; AND (D) THE DECLARATION IS OFFERED IN A CRIMINAL CASE FOR HOMICIDE, MURDER, OR PARRICIDE, IN WHICH THE DECLARANT IS A VICTIM.[14] ALL OF THE ABOVE REQUISITES ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE. THE COURT QUOTES WITH APPROVAL THE CA'S DISQUISITION ON THE MATTER: ERNESTO COMMUNICATED HIS ANTE-MORTEM STATEMENT TO JULIE ANN, IDENTIFYING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS AND THE OTHER TWO ACCUSED AS THE PERSONS WHO STABBED HIM. AT THE TIME OF HIS STATEMENT, ERNESTO WAS CONSCIOUS OF HIS IMPENDING DEATH, HAVING SUSTAINED MULTIPLE INCISE AND STAB WOUNDS, ONE OF WHICH BEING FATAL, PIERCING DEEPLY INTO THE MIDDLE LOBE OF HIS RIGHT LUNG, TRACHEA AND ESOPHAGUS. ERNESTO EVEN VOMITED BLOOD, COLLAPSED, AND EVENTUALLY DIED. X X X ERNESTO WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE DECLARATION HAD HE SURVIVED. LASTLY, THE DYING DECLARATION WAS OFFERED IN THIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR MURDER IN WHICH ERNESTO WAS THE VICTIM.[15] THE POSTULATE THAT DARKNESS OF THE NIGHT PREVENTED ERNESTO FROM IDENTIFYING HIS ASSAILANTS MUST BE REJECTED FOR BEING ENTIRELY CONJECTURAL. BASIC IS THE RULE THAT MERE ALLEGATION AND SPECULATION IS NOT EVIDENCE, AND IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO PROOF.[16] TO BE SURE, GERALDO AND EUGENE'S PROPOSITION CRUMBLES IN LIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY OF DR. PORCIUNCULA, JR., WHOSE COMPETENCE AS AN EXPERT WITNESS WAS ADMITTED BY THE DEFENSE. DR. PORCIUNCULA, JR. TESTIFIED THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE INJURIES IN FRONT, THE ASSAILANT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FRONT RIGHT SIDE OF THE VICTIM IF THE ASSAILANT WAS RIGHT-HANDED; WHEREAS, IF THE ASSAILANT WAS LEFT-HANDED, THEN HE WAS FACING THE VICTIM IN FRONT.[17] HE LIKEWISE STATED THAT THE INCISE WOUNDS ON THE HANDS COULD BE CONSIDERED AS DEFENSE WOUNDS AND IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE VICTIM WAS ABLE TO FIGHT BACK HIS ASSAILANT.[18] THE PRESENCE OF DEFENSE WOUNDS IS A POSITIVE INDICATION OF RESISTANCE ON THE PART ERNESTO. GAUGING FROM THE SITUS OF THE DEFENSE WOUNDS, IT IS DISCERNIBLE THAT THE VICTIM UTILIZED HIS HANDS TO WARD OFF THE SLEW OF ATTACKS FROM HIS ASSAILANTS. LOGICALLY, THE DEFENSE WOUNDS RESULTED FROM ATTACKS THAT WERE HURLED WITHIN ERNESTO'S LINE OF SIGHT, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT HIS HANDS COULD ONLY PARRY THOSE ATTACKS COMING FROM THE DIRECTION HE WAS FACING. THIS LEADS TO THE UNMISTAKABLE CONCLUSION THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME, ERNESTO CAME FACE TO FACE WITH HIS ASSAILANTS. CONTRARY TO GERALDO AND EUGENE'S ASSERTION, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD REVEALS THAT ERNESTO WAS IN A POSITION TO GLANCE UPON AND RECOGNIZE THE FACE OF HIS AGGRESSORS. MOREOVER, SUCH CONCLUSION IS BUTTRESSED BY THE UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS THAT ERNESTO SUSTAINED FRONTAL INJURIES; AND THAT THE ATTACKER COULD HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OR FACING THE VICTIM. ERNESTO'S STATEMENT MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE RES GESTAE. A DECLARATION OR AN UTTERANCE IS DEEMED AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE AND THUS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE WHEN THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES CONCUR, TO WIT: (A) THE PRINCIPAL ACT, THE RES GESTAE, IS A STARTLING OCCURRENCE; (B) THE STATEMENTS ARE MADE BEFORE THE DECLARANT HAD TIME TO CONTRIVE OR DEVISE; AND (C) THE STATEMENTS MUST CONCERN THE OCCURRENCE IN QUESTION AND ITS IMMEDIATELY ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES.[19] ERNESTO'S STATEMENT REFERRED TO A STARTLING OCCURRENCE, THAT IS, HIM BEING STABBED BY DODONG, EUGENE, RAMIL, AND A CERTAIN "PALAKA." AT THE TIME HE RELAYED HIS STATEMENT TO JULIE ANN, HE WAS WOUNDED AND BLOOD OOZED FROM HIS CHEST. GIVEN HIS CONDITION, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE HAD NO TIME TO CONTRIVE THE IDENTIFICATION OF HIS ASSAILANTS. HENCE, HIS UTTERANCE WAS MADE IN SPONTANEITY AND ONLY IN REACTION TO THE STARTLING OCCURRENCE. DEFINITELY, SUCH STATEMENT IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT IDENTIFIED THE AUTHORS OF THE CRIME.[20] THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH WAS IMPROPERLY APPRECIATED; GERALDO AND EUGENE COULD ONLY BE CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE ALTHOUGH THE COURT ENTERTAINS NO DOUBT THAT GERALDO AND EUGENE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERNESTO'S DEATH, THE LOWER TRIBUNALS ERRED WHEN IT APPRECIATED ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH TO QUALIFY THE KILLING TO MURDER. THE COURTS A QUO COMMONLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSAILANTS' NUMBER AND WEAPONS GAVE THEM SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE IN ENSURING THE DEATH OF ERNESTO. SUCH REASONING, HOWEVER, IS INCORRECT AND FAILS TO MUSTER THE STANDARDS SET BY JURISPRUDENCE ON THE PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH. IN PEOPLE V. BEDUYA (BEDUYA)[21] THE COURT EXPLAINED THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AS FOLLOWS: ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH IS PRESENT WHENEVER THERE IS A NOTORIOUS INEQUALITY OF FORCES BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE AGGRESSOR, ASSUMING A SITUATION OF SUPERIORITY OF STRENGTH NOTORIOUSLY ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE AGGRESSOR SELECTED OR TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY HIM IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO PERSONS WHO ATTACKED THE VICTIM DOES NOT PER SE ESTABLISH THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITH ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, THERE BEING NO PROOF OF THE RELATIVE STRENGTH OF THE AGGRESSORS AND THE VICTIM. THE EVIDENCE MUST ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSAILANTS PURPOSELY SOUGHT THE ADVANTAGE, OR THAT THEY HAD THE DELIBERATE INTENT TO USE THIS ADVANTAGE. TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH MEANS TO PURPOSELY USE EXCESSIVE FORCE OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE MEANS OF DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO THE PERSON ATTACKED.[22] AS POINTED OUT IN THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF, ONLY THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO (2) PERSONS CHASING ERNESTO, RAMIL AND GERALDO, CAN BE ASCERTAINED FROM MICHAEL'S TESTIMONY. IN LINE WITH BEDUYA, THE SOLE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO (2) PERSONS WHO ATTACKED THE VICTIM DOES NOT PER SE ESTABLISH THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITH ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH. MOREOVER, AS CAN BE GLEANED FROM MICHAEL'S TESTIMONY, THE RESPECTIVE ATTACKS THROWN BY RAMIL AND GERALDO OCCURRED ALTERNATELY, ONE AFTER THE OTHER. IT IS SETTLED THAT WHEN THE ATTACK WAS MADE ON THE VICTIM ALTERNATELY, THERE IS NO ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH.[23] BESIDES, THE COURT NOTES THAT EUGENE WAS NOT EVEN A PARTICIPANT IN THE CHASE MICHAEL WITNESSED. NEITHER WILL ERNESTO'S DYING DECLARATION SUFFICE TO ESTABLISH ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH. THE ANTE MORTEM STATEMENT, AS RELAYED TO JULIE ANN, REVOLVED SOLELY ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ASSAILANTS DODONG, EUGENE, RAMIL, AND A CERTAIN "PALAKA." THERE WAS NO ACCOUNT ON HOW THE ASSAULT TRANSPIRED OR A NARRATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AGGRESSORS COOPERATED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO SECURE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR COMBINED STRENGTH TO PERPETRATE THE CRIME WITH IMPUNITY.[24] ASIDE FROM NAMING HIS ASSAILANTS, ERNESTO'S ANTE MORTEM STATEMENT IS BEREFT OF ANY INDICIA THAT WILL CONVINCE THE COURT THAT THE PERPETRATORS ESPOUSED A DELIBERATE DESIGN TO UTILIZE THE ADVANTAGE OF NUMBER AND WEAPONS. THUS, THE DEARTH IN THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE IMPELS A DOWNGRADING OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE COMMITTED FROM MURDER TO HOMICIDE.PROPER PENALTY AND AWARD OF DAMAGES HAVING ESTABLISHED GERALDO AND EUGENE'S GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE, THEY MUST SUFFER THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW. THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE IS PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION TEMPORAL. CONSIDERING THAT THERE ARE NO MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PENALTY SHOULD BE FIXED IN ITS MEDIUM PERIOD. APPLYING THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, THEY SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO AN INDETERMINATE TERM, THE MINIMUM OF WHICH IS WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE PENALTY NEXT LOWER IN DEGREE, I.E., PRISION MAYOR, AND THE MAXIMUM OF WHICH IS THAT PROPERLY IMPOSABLE UNDER THE RPC, I.E., RECLUSION TEMPORAL IN ITS MEDIUM PERIOD.[25] IN LINE WITH PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE,[26] THE COURT REDUCES THE AWARDS OF CIVIL INDEMNITY TO P50,000.00. LIKEWISE, THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES IS REDUCED TO P50,000.00. WHEREFORE, THE APRIL 6, 2011 DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 128, CALOOCAN CITY, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. C-70393, IS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. THE COURT FINDS ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GERALDO SANTILLAN Y VILLANUEVA AND EUGENE BORROMEO Y NATIVIDAD GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE AND HEREBY SENTENCES THEM TO AN INDETERMINATE PENALTY OF EIGHT (8) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR, AS MINIMUM, TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL, AS MAXIMUM; TO PAY THE HEIRS OF ERNESTO GARCIA THE AMOUNTS OF P27,845.00 AS ACTUAL DAMAGES; P50,000.00 AS CIVIL INDEMNITY; AND P50,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES. THE DAMAGES AWARDED SHALL EARN INTEREST AT THE RATE OF SIX PERCENT (6%) PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF FINALITY OF JUDGMENT UNTIL FULLY PAID. SO ORDERED. CARPIO, (CHAIRPERSON), PERALTA, LEONEN, AND MARTIRES, JJ., CONCUR. [1] PENNED BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MYRA V. GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, WITH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NOEL G. TIJAM (NOW MEMBER OF THE COURT) AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES, CONCURRING; ROLLO, PP. 2-20. [2] PENNED BY PRESIDING JUDGE ELEANOR R. KWONG; CA ROLLO, PP. 82-92. [3] ID. AT 82. [4] ID. AT 84. [5] ID. AT 89. [6] ID. [7] ID. AT 90. [8] ID. AT 92. [9] ROLLO, P. 11. [10] ID. AT 18-19. [11] ID. AT 26-27. [12] ID. AT 28-30. [13] ID. AT 33-35. [14] PEOPLE V. SALAFRANCA, 682 PHIL. 470, 481-482 (2012). [15] ROLLO, PP. 13-14. [16] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. DE VILLA, G.R. NO. 208341, JUNE 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 288, 304. [17] CA ROLLO, P. 86. [18] ID. [19] PEOPLE V. SALAFRANCA, SUPRA NOTE 14, AT 482-483. [20] PEOPLE V. PALANAS, G.R. NO. 214453, JUNE 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 318, 329. [21] 641 PHIL. 399 (2010). [22] ID. [23] PEOPLE V. BALTAR, JR., 401 PHIL. 1, 16 (2000). [24] PEOPLE V. MARIANO BALUYOT, 252 PHIL. 591, 598 (1989). [25] PEOPLE V. BEDUYA, SUPRA NOTE 21, AT 413-414.	WHEREFORE	1 cases
WHITE, J.	WHITE	1 cases
WILLARD J.	WILLARD	1 cases
WILLLARD, J.	WILLLARD	2 cases
WLLLARD, J.	WLLLARD	4 cases
YAP, C.J.	YAP	4 cases
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.	YNARES-SANTIAGO	5 cases
YNARES-SATIAGO, J.	YNARES-SATIAGO	155 cases
YNARES_SANTIAGO, J.	YNARES_SANTIAGO	6 cases
YULO. C.J.	YULO. C.J.	3 cases
ZALAMEDA, J.	ZALAMEDA	4 cases
ZALDIVAR, J.	ZALDIVAR	112 cases
ZALDIVAR. J.	ZALDIVAR.	69 cases
ÂMENDOZA, J.	ÂMENDOZA	1 cases