RTIFIED TRUE COPY

l\.epublic of tbe ~ btlipptne~ ~~ n C I c r k of Co u 1· I

&upreme QCourt T ! ' i nt D i v i s i o n

;Manila MAR 2 7 2018

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 215320

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

VELASCO, JR., J.,

Chairperson,
- versus - BERSAMIN,
LEONEN,
MARTIRES, and
GESMUNDO, JJ.

MANUEL CORPUZ, Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant.

x---------~---------------------------------------------~~~--x
DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

On appeal is the 14 March 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals

(CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01355, which affirmed with modification
the 25 March 2011 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Abuyog, Leyte,
Branch 10 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 2389 and 2390, finding herein
accused-appellant Manuel Corpuz (Manuel) guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of two (2) counts of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).

THE FACTS

On 18 January 2005, Manuel was charged with two (2) counts of

murder committed upon the persons of Romana P. Arcular (Romana) and
Leonila C. Risto (Leonila) under two (2) Informations, which accusatory
portions read: ~

Rollo, pp. 4-20; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos, and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla.
Records (Criminal Case No. 2390), pp. 155-164; penned by Presiding Judge Buenaventura A. Pajaron.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 215320

Criminal Case No. 2389

That on or about the 29th day of October 2004, in the Municipality

of Abuyog, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with deliberate intent to
kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, the victim being a
woman and 74 years old, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, hack and wound one ROMANA P.
AR[C]ULAR with the use of a long bladed weapon locally known as
"sundang" which the accused provided himself for the purpose, thereby
hitting and inflicting upon the said ROMANA P. AR[C]ULAR a [hack]
wound at the right occipital area with fracture of underlying bone which
was the direct and proximate cause of her death. 3

Criminal Case No. 2390

That on or about the 29th day of October 2004, in the Municipality

of Abuyog, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with deliberate intent to
kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength the victim being a
woman and 64 years old, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, hack and wound one LEONILA C. [H]ISTO
with the use of a long bladed weapon locally known as "sundang" which
the accused provided himself for the purpose, thereby hitting and inlicting
upon the said LEONILA C. [H]ISTO a [hack] wound with laceration of
the right earlobe at left stemocleidomastoid area which was the direct and
proximate cause of her death. 4

On 3 May 2005, Manuel, with the assistance of counsel, was

arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. 5 Trial on the
merits thereafter ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: Pedro

Dejaresco (Pedro), Leonilo Bongalan (Leonila), Teodoro Queri-queri
(Teodoro), and Dr. Amelia C. Gacis (Dr. Gacis). Their combined
testimonies tended to establish the following:

On 29 October 2004, at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Leonila

told Leonilo, her son-in-law, that she would go to her farm situated at
Barangay Maitom, Abuyog, Leyte. 6 Later, at around 4:00 o'clock in the
afternoon, Leonilo went to the farm to check on his mother-in-law. 7 Upon
reaching the farm, he saw Manuel hacking Leonila and Romana with a bolo
about 26 inches in length. 8 Leonila was hit in the right nape, 9 while Romana
Records (Criminal Case No. 2389), p. I.
fo1
Records (Criminal Case No. 2390), p. 16.
Id. at 22.
6
TSN, 13 September 2006, p. 14.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 5-7.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 215320

was hit in the left nape. 10 Both victims fell to the ground. I I After witnessing
the incident, Leonilo ran towards the house of Juaquinito Poliquit
(Juaquinito), the Barangay Captain of Barangay Maitom. 12 After reporting
the incident and that Manuel was the assailant, 13 Leonilo and Juaquinito
proceeded to the police station where the incident was again reported.
Thereafter, the victims were brought to the chapel and later autopsied at the
Rural Health Unit. 14

Meanwhile, at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day,

Pedro and Teodoro were on their way home when they saw Manuel on the
trail, half-naked and holding a bolo. They noted that Manuel came from the
direction .of the place where the incident happened. 15

The postmortem examinations I 6 conducted by Dr. Gacis on the

cadavers of the deceased revealed that each victim sustained a fatal hack
wound. In particular, Dr. Gacis testified that Romana sustained a hack
wound in the back close to the heart which possibly hit the occipital area
about five (5) inches long, and which fractured the underlying bone; while
Leonila sustained a hack wound six (6) inches long which lacerated the right
ear lobe at the left sternum occipital area. Dr. Gacis stated that it was
possible that the assailant used a sharp-bladed weapon such as a bolo or
sundang. 17

At the time of death, Romana was 74 years old, 18 while Leonila was
65 years old. 19

Evidence.for the Defense

The defense presented Manuel and his wife Annabelle Corpuz

(Annabelle) as witnesses. Their testimonies sought to establish the defenses
of alibi and denial, as follows:

On 29 October 2004, at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Manuel

was at Barangay Capilian, Abuyog, Leyte, with one Nestor Castos (Nestor),
and a certain Ike, who hired him to cultivate and plow his rice field.2° On~

9
Id. at 6.
10
Id. at 7.
11
Id. at 8.
12
Id. at 8-9.
13
Id. at 15.
14
Id.at9-iO.
15
TSN, I4 March 2006, pp. 4-5; TSN, 19 February 2007, pp. 4-6.
16
Records (Criminal Case No. 2390), p. 7 and 9; Exhibits "A" and "C."
17
TSN, 16'July 2008, pp. 5-6.
18
Records (Criminal Case No. 2390), p. 8; Exhibit "B."
19
Id. at 10; Exhibit "D"
20
TSN, 17 Ju°ry 2009, p. 4.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 215320

that day, he arrived at Barangay Capilian at around 8:00 o'clock in the

morning and stayed there until 4:30 p.m .. He took his lunch at the said
barangay: 21 After completing his task, he walked home with Nestor and Ike
and arrived at his house at Barangay Maitom, Abuyog, Leyte, at around 5:30
p.m .. 22 Manuel maintained that he only learned of the deaths of Leonila and
23
Romana after he was apprehended by the police.

Manuel was 40 years old when he took the witness stand on 17 July
24
2009.

Annabelle corroborated Manuel's testimony that he plowed Nestor's

rice field on 29 October 2004, from morning until around 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon. 25 She stated that at that time she was actually at Nestor's house
26
which faced the rice field as she was tasked to cook lunch. After Manuel
finished plowing Nestor's rice field, they left and arrived at their house at
around 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon. 27 In answer to the clarificatory
questions by the judge, Annabelle stated that the distance between their
house in Brgy. Maitom and Nestor's house is the same as the distance from
the courtroom to the market place, estimated to be around 200 meters. 28

The defense further submitted in evidence a copy of the police

blotter 29 taken when Leonilo and Juaquinito reported the incident to the
Abuyog Police Station. In the said police blotter, it was stated that the
suspect was still unknown; and that Leonilo saw the dead bodies of Leonila
and Romana, without any indication about witnessing the actual hacking of
the two by Manuel.

The RTC Ruling

In its decision, the RTC found Manuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of two (2) counts of murder. The trial court gave credence to the testimony
of Leonilo considering that he knew Manuel prior to the incident; that the
incident happened in broad daylight; and that no improper motive was
attributed to him in testifying against the accused. The trial court was also
convinced that the qualifying aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior

/l"1
strength attended the commission of the crimes. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:

21
Id. at 5.
22
Id. at 5-6.
23
Id. at 11.
24
Id. at 3.
25
TSN, 1 June 2010, pp. 7-8.
26
Id. at 6-7.
27
Id. at 15.
zs Id.
29
Records (Criminal Case No. 2390), p. 124; Exhibit "1."
Decision 5 G.R. No. 215320

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused

MANUEL CORPUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
MURDER and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA in each of the aforesaid cases and to pay each of the heirs of
the victims P.75,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P.25,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the
victims. 30

Aggrieved, Manuel appealed before the CA. 31

The CA Ruling

In its appealed decision, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC

decision. The appellate court ruled that Manuel offered no sufficient reason
to disturb the trial court's evaluation of the prosecution eyewitness'
credibility. The appellate court further ruled that treachery and abuse of
superior strength attended the commission of the crimes thereby qualifying
them to murder. The appellate court, however, modified the RTC decision
with respect to the award of damages by increasing exemplary damages to
P30,000.00 from P25,000.00, and additionally awarding P25,000.00 as
temperate damages for each count of murder. The dispositive portion of the
appealed decision provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED.

The Decision dated 25 March 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
10, Abuyog, Leyte in Criminal Case Nos. 2389 and 2390 finding accused-
appellant Manuel Corpuz guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole.

He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Leonila Histo and Romana

Arcular the following:

1. Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php 75,000.00) as civil

indeminity;
2. Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) as moral damages;
3. Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00) as exemplary damages;
and
4. Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (Php 25,000.00) as temperate
damages.

All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal
rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully
pai'd .32 /Ji1J
/i"T
30
Records (Criminal Case No. 2390), p. 164.
31
Id. at 165.
32
Rollo, pp. 18-19.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 215320

Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED IN

CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT MANUEL CORPUZ FOR
THE DEATHS OF ROMANA ARCULAR AND LEONILA HISTO
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION's FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
33
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

THE COURT'S RULING

The appeal lacks merit.

No reason to disturb factual

findings by the trial court;
prosecution eyewitness is credible.

Manuel insists that the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling that
the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He
argues that his conviction was based mainly on the testimony of Leonilo
who, however, is not a credible witness. He points out that the police blotter
clearly contradicts Leonilo' s testimony that he actually saw Manuel hack
Leonila and Romana. Thus, there is reasonable doubt on Leonilo' s
identification of Manuel as the person responsible for the deaths of the two
victims.

The Court is not persuaded.

Entries in the police blotter are not evidence of the truth thereof but
merely of the fact that the entries were made. 34 Affidavits executed before
the police or entries in such police blotters cannot prevail over the positive
testimony given in open court. 35 The entry in the police blotter is not
necessarily entitled to full credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate,
sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of suggestions or
inquiries. Without the aid of such the witness may be unable to recall the
connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first
suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that pertain
to the subject. It is understandable that the testimony during the trial would
be more lengthy and detailed than the matters stated in the police blotter.'/"/

33
CA rollo, p. 41.
34
People v. Gomez, 357 Phil. 684, 694 (1998); People v. Ledesma, 320 Phil. 215, 221-222 (1995).
35
People v. Ledesma, 320 Phil. 215, 222 (1995); People v. Gomez, id. at 694; People v. Matilda, 300
Phil. 681, 688 (1994); People v. Malazarte, 330 Phil. 193, 201-202 (1996).
36
People v, San Gabriel, 323 Phil. 102, 111 (1996).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 215320

In this case, Leonilo positively identified Manuel as the person who

hacked the two victims. He was certain that it was Manuel whom he saw
having known him for years prior to the incident, thus:

PROS. MONTALLA:

Q. Did you recognize the person who hacked your mother-in-law?

A. Yes, Sir.

Q. Who was he?

A. Manuel Corpuz.

Q. If Manuel Corpuz is in court now, will you please point him

out?
A. That one.

INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to a lone accused seated at the accused bench and

identified himself as Manuel Corpuz.

[PROS. MONTALLA:]

Q. About how long have you known Manuel Corpuz?

37
A. About six (6) years already.

Moreover, Leonilo offered sufficient explanation regarding the

apparent inconsistencies between his testimony and the police blotter.
During cross-examination, Leonilo answered the questions in this wise:

ATTY. MAQUILAN:

Q. Was this your report to the Brgy. Captain blottered in their

office?
A. Yes, Ma'am.

Q. And immediately after it was blottered you went together with

him to the police station?
A. Yes, Ma' am.

Q. So what time was that when the [Brgy.] Captain and you went
to the police station?
A. We reached there at the police station past 8:00 o'clock in the
evening.

Q. And upon reaching the police station, you again made a report
of what you have seen?
A. Yes, Ma' am.

Q. And did you tell exactly the name of the [person] whom you
_ _ _ _ _ _ _s_a_w_w_h_o_hacked your mother-in-law? /JJMiJ
37
TSN, 13 September2006, pp. 6-7. f'""/
Decision 8 G.R. No. 215320

A. Yes, Ma' am.

Q. And you have seen the same blottered on their blotter book?
38
A. I did not observe.

Clearly, Leonilo had no part in the apparent inconsistencies caused by

the contents of the police blotter. Indeed, he merely reported what he
witnessed; whether the police officer accurately recorded his report is
beyond his control. Thus, the statement in the said police blotter to the effect
that the suspect was unknown could in no way prevail over his positive
identification of the accused-appellant as the person who hacked and killed
Leonila and Romana. 39

As to Manuel's defense of alibi, suffice it to state that the same is an

inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible
testimony of the prosecution witness that accused-appellant has committed
the crime. Further, for such defense to prosper, he must prove that he was
somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far
away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the
place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its
• • 40
comm1ss1on.

In this case, Manuel's own wife testified that at the time of the
incident, he was just 200 meters away from their house in Brgy. Maitom,
where Leonila and Romana were killed. Clearly, the required physical
impossibility due to distance for alibi to prosper was not sufficiently
demonstrated.

The crime committed is Murder

qualified by abuse of superior
strength; presence of treachery
not established.

The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever

there is inequality of force between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a
situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the
41
crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the
advantage or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advant:age. 4 '/Ji/
38
Id. at 16-17.
39
People v. Ledesma, supra note 35.
40
People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
41
Espineli v. People, 735 Phil. 530, 544-545 (2014); People v. Quisayas, 731 Phil. 577, 596 (2014).
42
Valenzuela v. People, 612 Phil. 907, 917 (2009).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 215320

The appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior

strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. 43 Thus, in a
long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that an attack made by a
man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and
the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was
unable to defend herself. 44 There is also abuse of such superiority when the
victim is old and weak, while the accused is stronger on account of his
. 1y younger age. 45
re 1at1ve

Here, it has been established that the two victims were defenseless old
women - Romana at 74 years old, and Leonila at 65 years old. In contrast,
Manuel was shown armed with a deadly weapon. Further, at the time of the
incident, Manuel was around 36 years old, in the prime of his years. Thus,
the trial and appellate courts correctly convicted Manuel of two (2) counts of
murder for the deaths of Romana and Leonila.

The Court, however, disagrees with the appellate court with respect to
its pronouncement that treachery attended the crime.

Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes

against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof, tending directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 46 For
treachery· to be appreciated, the concurrence of two conditions must be
established: first, the employment of means of execution that gives the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and second,
the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. 47

The appellate court opined that treachery attended the commission of

the felony because of the suddenness of the attack. However, mere
suddenness of an attack is not sufficient to constitute treachery where it does
not appear that the aggressor adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the
perpetration of the killing without risk to himself. 48 In this case, the
prosecution failed to present any evidence which would show that Manuel
consciously adopted his mode of attack without risk to himself. Thus,
treachery cannot be appreciated in this case"fiJll

43
People v. Calpito, 462 Phil. 172, 179 (2003).
44
People v. Appegu, 429 Phil. 467, 482 (2002); People v. Mo/as, 291-A Phil. 516, 525 ( 1993).
45
People v. Lopez, 396 Phil. 604, 613 (2000).
46
People v. De Leon, 428 Phil. 556, 581 (2002).
47
People v. De Gracia, 765 Phil. 386, 396 (2015).
48
People v. Cami/et, 226 Phil. 316, 324 (1986).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 215320

Penalties. and monetary awards

Under Article 63(2) of the RPC, in cases where the penalty prescribed
is composed of two indivisible penalties, and there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. In this regard,
Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
7659, punishes murder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

In this case, other than the circumstance of abuse of superior strength

which already qualified the crimes to murder, no other modifying
circumstance is present, whether aggravating or mitigating. Thus, the lesser
penalty reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. The Court modifies the
decision of the appellate court by deleting the phrase "without eligibility for
parole" from the penalty imposed. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole is applicable only when reclusion perpetua is imposed
49
in lieu of death due to the latter's suspension under R.A. No. 9346. Such is
not the case here.

The Court further modifies the CA decision with respect to the

monetary awards. In People v. Jugueta, 50 the Court summarized the amounts
of damages which may be awarded for different crimes. In said case, the
Court held that when the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the
following amounts may be awarded: (1) P75,000.00, as civil indemnity;
(2) P75,000.00, as moral damages; and (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary
damages. The aforesaid amounts are proper in this case. The Court further
retains the award of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu
of actual damages.

WHEREFORE, accused-appellant Manuel Corpuz is found

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of
Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amend.ed. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count. He is further ordered to pay the respective heirs of the deceased
Romana P. Arcular and Leonila C. Histo for each count of murder in the
following amounts: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as
moral damages; (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) P25,000.00
as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until
their full payment. ~
5

49
Peoplev. Sibbu, G.R. No. 214757, 29 March 2017.
50
G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 381-382.
51
People v. Combate, 653 Phil. 487, 518 (2010).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 215320

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERp J. VELASCO, JR.

Asf?ciate Justice
Chairperson

Associate Justice

ATTEST A TI ON

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Oivision.

PRESBITEJ10 J. VELASCO, JR.

sociate Justice
Chai~rson, Third Division
Decision · 12 G.R. No. 215320

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

cj2r<;nFn:.D ~ ~Y

\Vil ·RFDO~
D i" '.,ion Clerk of Co u rt
TL ; n! Di., is ion

MAR 2 7 201B