11.2.2. pp v marcos

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

1/12

9/3/14 CentralBooks:Reader

central .com.ph/sfsreader /session/000001483ae331465c518300000a0082004500cc/t/?o=False

VOL. 349, JANUARY 18, 2001 537

People vs. Marcos

G.R. No. 132392. January 18, 2001.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

CESAR MARCOS Y MON, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery;

There was treachery where the accused attacked the victim frombehind and while the latter was in a stooping position, thereby

depriving the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim a chance

to repel or offer any defense of his person .The two conditions

before treachery may be considered a qualifying circumstance are:

(a) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution to

ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts

on the part of the victim; and (b) the deliberate adoption by the

offender of such means, methods, or manner of execution. It is well-

established that treachery, to be considered a qualifying

circumstance, must be proven as clearly and indubitably as the

crime itself, and it may not be simply deduced from presumption. In

the case at bar, prosecution witness Fernando Marcos gave an

eyewitness account of how appellant attacked the victim. He

testified that appellant, armed with a bolo, suddenly attacked the

victim from behind and while the latter was in a stooping position,

thereby depriving the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim a

chance to repel or offer any defense of his person. And when the

victim fell to the ground, accused hacked him again guaranteeing

that the victim would not survive the attack. This undoubtedlyconstitutes treachery for the means employed by the accused

ensured the execution of his nefarious design upon the victim

without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended

party might have made. The aggravating circumstance of treachery

qualifies the crime to murder.

Same; Same; Alternative Circumstances; Relationship; In order

that the alternative circumstance of relationship may be taken into

consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, the offended
http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

2/12


central .com.ph/sfsreader /session/000001483ae331465c518300000a0082004500cc/t/?o=False 2

party must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant,

(d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by

affinity in the same degree, of the offender; The rule is that

relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons as when the

offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level, such

as killing a brother.In order that the alternative circumstance of

relationship may be taken into consideration in the imposi-

_______________

*EN BANC.

538

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Marcos

tion of the proper penalty, the offended party must either be the (a)

spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or

adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same

degree, of the offender. In the case at bar, prosecution eyewitness

Fernando Marcos, Jr. testified that Cesar and Virgilio Marcos are

brothers. Accused likewise declared that Virgilio is his brother. That

the victim is the elder brother of Cesar is likewise alleged in the

Information. The rule is that relationship is aggravating in crimes

against persons as when the offender and the offended party are

relatives of the same level, such as killing a brother. Thus,

relationship was correctly appreciated as an aggravating

circumstance.

Same; Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Voluntary Surrender;

Requisites; Where the accused testified that he voluntarily

surrendered to the police and the prosecution did not dispute such

claim, then the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

should be appreciated in his favor. For voluntary surrender to be

appreciated, the following requisites must be present: (a) that the

offender had not been actually arrested; (b) that the offender

surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters agent;

and (c) that the surrender was voluntary. The circumstances of the

surrender must show that it was made spontaneously and in a

manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused to surrender

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

3/12



unconditionally, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he

wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense which will

necessarily be incurred in searching for and capturing him. In the

case at bar, appellant testified that he did not resist when the police

brought him to the police station but instead voluntarily and

unconditionally placed himself at the disposal of the authorities. The

fact that appellant voluntarily surrendered is further buttressed by

the certification issued by the police to that effect. This was neverrefuted by the prosecution. In one case, it was held that where the

accused testified that he voluntarily surrendered to the police and

the prosecution did not dispute such claim, then the mitigating

circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his

favor.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Burgos, Pangasinan, Br. 70.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. The Solicitor Generalfor plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorneys Officefor accused-appellant.

539

VOL. 349, JANUARY 18, 2001 539

People vs. Marcos

PUNO, J.:

Before this Court on automatic review is a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70, in

Criminal Case No. B-055, dated January 7, 1998, finding

accused-appellant Cesar Marcos y Mon guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and imposing upon

him the supreme penalty of death.

In an Information1

dated October 11, 1996, accused-

appellant Cesar Marcos y Mon was charged with the crime

of Murder, committed as follows:

That on or about August 19, 1996, at noon, in Brgy. Bayambang,

Municipality of Infanta, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named

accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident

premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and

feloniously hack Virgilio Marcos y Mon, his elder brother with a bolo

hitting on the right side of head, back of neck and other parts of his

body, inflicting upon him injuries, to wit:
http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

4/12



- Hacking wound, right, temporo-parietal, 2 1/2

inches

- Avulsion, right, temporo-parietal area, about one

inch below the first wound, about 5x3 inches

- Hacking wound, 5x3 inches, occipital area

- Hacking wound, 2 inches, submandibular area

- Hacking wound, right, elbow joint area, 4x2 inches

which caused his instantaneous death as a consequence, to the

damage and prejudice of his heirs.

CONTRARY to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

During the arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not

guilty to the offense charged and hence, trial ensued. On

January 7, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision2

the

dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Cesar Marcos y Monguilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder punishable

under

_______________

1Original Record, p. 1.

2 Penned by Executive Judge Angel L. Hernando, Jr.; Original Record, pp.

230-236.

540


People vs. Marcos

Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences him to suffer the

supreme penalty of Death. Likewise, the accused is hereby ordered

to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Fifty One Thousand

Pesos (P51,000.00) as actual damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos

(P50,000.00) as moral damages.

Accused-appellant Cesar Marcos (Cesar) and the victim

Virgilio Marcos (Virgilio) are brothers and they live in the

same house at Bayambang, Infanta Pangasinan.

Evidence for the prosecution shows that on August 19,

1996 at about 12:00 noon, Fernando Marcos, Jr. (Fernando)

was resting under a mango tree a few meters away from the

house of the Marcoses. After a while, his uncle Virgilio

arrived and proceeded to the artesian well (jetmatic) located
http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

5/12



just at the back of the house. Virgilio bent down to put on

the ground the tools he was carrying. It was at this precise

moment that Fernando saw his uncle Cesar come out of the

kitchen door with a bolo in hand and suddenly hacked the

unsuspecting Virgilio from behind. Virgilio was hit on the

nape of the neck which caused him to fall to the ground.

Then Cesar hacked him again and this time Virgilio was hit

on the right side of the head. Fernando rushed to his uncleCesar and asked why he did that, to which Cesar replied

You go away if you do not want to get involved. Out of fear,

Fernando could only watch helplessly at Virgilio as the

latter was asking him for help. Then Fernando heard Cesar

tell Virgilio Tour life is not enough to pay the money you

squandered.

Fernando ran to the house of Kagawad Solomon del

Fierro (Solomon) to ask for assistance. After learning of the

hacking incident, Solomon went with Fernando to go to the

Marcoses house. On the road, they met the Chief of theCivilian Voluntary Organization, Catalino Custodio

(Catalino), heading towards the same direction. When they

reached the house, they saw Cesar seated inside the sala

where a bloodied bolo lay on top of the table beside Cesar.

Solomon then asked Cesar where the victim was and he

motioned towards the back of the house. When they saw the

bloodied Virgilio sprawled on the ground near the artesian

well, they shifted him to a more comfortable position.

Catalino was about to leave to

541

VOL. 349, JANUARY 18, 2001 541

People vs. Marcos

look for a car that would bring Virgilio to the hospital when

the policemen arrived and went inside the house. Cesar

surrendered his bolo to SPO1 Oscar Lagasca and, withoututtering a word, allowed himself to be hauled into the police

car together with the body of Virgilio. Solomon and the son

of Virgilio went with them. On the way to the police station,

Solomon asked Cesar why he hacked his brother, to which

the latter answered Thats good for him. Solomon tried to

explain to Cesar that he can be jailed for what he did but

Cesar simply replied Even if I will be jailed. Then Cesar

turned to the son of Virgilio and said Now you see what

happened to your father. When they reached the police

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

6/12



station, Virgilio was already dead. Cesar was immediately

detained.

Dr. Genaro Merino who conducted a post mortem

examination on the body of Virgilio testified that the victim

died due to hemorrhage or loss of blood, secondary to

multiple hacking wounds. He surmised that by the nature of

the wounds sustained, the same could have been caused by

a bolo. He claims that considering that majority of thewounds inflicted were located on the right side of the victim,

it is possible that the assailant was standing just behind the

victim on his left side. He discounted the possibility that the

assailant and the victim could have been facing each other

because a person could not be hacked in front.

Accused-appellant gave a different version of what

happened. According to him, in the afternoon of August 19,

1996 he was on his way out of the house when he was met by

Virgilio near the artesian well who suddenly unsheathed his

bolo and tried to hack him. Cesar was able to get hold ofVirgilios arm and they grappled for the bolo. In the course

of the struggle, Virgilio tripped and fell to the ground

thereby hitting his head with the bolo. When Cesar saw that

Virgilio was already wounded, he went inside the house and

sat on the bamboo bed near the door where he stayed until

the policemen arrived. According to Cesar, the police

retrieved the bolo from Virgilio who was then holding it. He

likewise testified that he agreed to go to the police station

because he was asked by the police to accompany hisbrother. However upon reaching the police station, he was

immediately detained, and several days thereafter, a

criminal complaint was filed against him. According to

Cesar,

542


People vs. Marcos

Virgilio tried to hack him because he left Virgilio behind

when he went out fishing the night before.

Accused-appellant raises as his lone assignment of error

the issue of whether or not the trial court correctly imposed

the penalty of death. It is argued that although the

aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was

raised in the information, the prosecution failed to prove the

same and hence, accused-appellant can only be sentenced to

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

7/12



reclusion perpetua, citing in support thereof the rulings in

the cases of People vs. Lucas (240 SCRA 68) and People vs.

Saliling (249 SCRA 185). In the latter case, the Court held

that where the killing although qualified by treachery was

not attended by evident premeditation or any other

aggravating circumstance, and neither was there any

mitigating circumstance, the penalty must be reduced to

reclusion perpetua.The Solicitor General countered that the presence or

absence of evident premeditation should not come to fore

simply because it was never appreciated by the trial court in

its questioned decision nor was it considered in determining

the penalty to be imposed. It submits that appellants blood

relationship with the victim as an aggravating

circumstance, in addition to the qualifying circumstance of

treachery, warrants the imposition of the death penalty.

The two conditions before treachery may be considered a

qualifying circumstance are: (a) the employment of means,methods, or manner of execution to ensure the safety of the

malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of

the victim; and (b) the deliberate adoption by the offender of

such means, methods, or manner of execution.3

It is well-

established that treachery, to be considered a qualifying

circumstance, must be proven as clearly and indubitably as

the crime itself, and it may not be simply deduced from

presumption.4

In the case at bar, prosecution witness

Fernando Marcos gave an eyewitness account of howappellant attacked the victim. He testified that appellant,

armed with a bolo,

_______________

3People vs. Pepe Lozada, G.R. No. 130589, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA

602; People vs. Abdulajid Sabdani y Shumarhari, G.R. No. 134262, June

28, 2000, 334 SCRA 498.

4 People vs. Macaliag & Jesse Torre and Juliver Chua, G.R. No.

130655, August 9, 2000, 337 SCRA 502.

543

VOL. 349, JANUARY 18, 2001 543

People vs. Marcos

suddenly attacked the victim from behind and while the

latter was in a stooping position, thereby depriving the
http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

8/12



hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim a chance to repel

or offer any defense of his person. And when the victim fell

to the ground, accused hacked him again guaranteeing that

the victim would not survive the attack. This undoubtedly

constitutes treachery for the means employed by the

accused ensured the execution of his nefarious design upon

the victim without risk to himself arising from any defense

which the offended party might have made.

5

Theaggravating circumstance of treachery qualifies the crime to

murder.

It is not disputed that the aggravating circumstance of

evident premeditation, although alleged in the information,

was not duly proven by the prosecution and hence, it was

properly not appreciated by the trial court. However, the

Solicitor General insists that since accused is a brother of

the victim, the alternative circumstance of relationship

must be considered in determining the imposable penalty.

In order that the alternative circumstance of relationshipmay be taken into consideration in the imposition of the

proper penalty, the offended party must either be the (a)

spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural

or adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the

same degree, of the offender.6

In the case at bar, prosecution

eyewitness Fernando Marcos, Jr. testified that Cesar and

Virgilio Marcos are brothers.7

Accused likewise declared that

Virgilio is his brother.8

That the victim is the elder brother

of Cesar is likewise alleged in the Information. The rule isthat relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons

as when the offender and the offended party are relatives of

the same level, such as killing a brother.9

Thus, relationship

was correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

_______________

5People vs. Rufino Teston and Rogelio Gaco, G.R. No. 134938, June 8,

2000, 333 SCRA 404.

6People vs. Caballes, 274 SCRA 83 (1997).

7TSN, December 17, 1996, p. 2.

8TSN, August 27, 1997, p. 1.

9Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book One, 14th rev. ed., 1998, p. 462,

citing People vs. Alisub, 69 Phil. 362, 364 (1940).

544

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

9/12



People vs. Marcos

It appears from the records that a Certification was issued

by the Philippine National Police at Infanta, Pangasinan

dated 18 February 1997, which states that herein accused

voluntarily surrendered to this station with the weapon

used.10

Nevertheless, the trial court did not take into

consideration this mitigating circumstance of voluntarysurrender. Neither was it raised in the appellants nor

appellees brief. Be that as it may, considering its possible

effect on the penalty that may be imposed in this case, it is

well to ascertain if the mitigating circumstance of voluntary

surrender may be appreciated in favor of herein accused.

For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following

requisites must be present: (a) that the offender had not

been actually arrested; (b) that the offender surrendered

himself to a person in authority or to the latters agent; and

(c) that the surrender was voluntary. The circumstances of

the surrender must show that it was made spontaneously

and in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused

to surrender unconditionally, either because he

acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities

the trouble and expense which will necessarily be incurred

in searching for and capturing him.11

In the case at bar, appellant testified that he did not

resist when the police brought him to the police station but

instead voluntarily and unconditionally placed himself atthe disposal of the authorities.

12

The fact that appellant

voluntarily surrendered is further buttressed by the

certification issued by the police to that effect. This was

never refuted by the prosecution. In one case, it was held

that where the accused testified that he voluntarily

surrendered to the police and the prosecution did not

dispute such claim, then the mitigating circumstance of

voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his favor.13

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is

punishable by reclusion perpetuato death. Article 63 thereof

provides the rules for the application of indivisible penalties,

to wit:

_______________

10Exhibit B, Original Record, p. 107.

11People vs. Sambulan, 289 SCRA 500 (1998).

12TSN, August 27, 1997, p. 14.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

10/12



1.

2.

3.

4.

13People vs. Malabago, 265 SCRA 198 (1996).

545

VOL. 349, JANUARY 18, 2001 545

People vs. Marcos

Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.x x x.

In all cases in which the law prescribes the penalty composed of

two indivisible penalties the following rules shall be observed in the

application thereof:

When in the commission of the deed there is present only

one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be

applied.

When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating

circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesserpenalty shall be applied.

When the commission of the act is attended by some

mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating

circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances

attended the commission of the act, the courts shall

reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration

of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying

the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules,according to the result of such compensation.

In the present case, While the trial court correctly

considered the qualifying circumstance of treachery, it

failed to make a finding as to the presence of any

aggravating circumstance which would justify the

imposition of the death penalty. There is here present the

aggravating circumstance of relationship but this is offset

by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Perforce, pursuant to Article 63, the correct penalty to beimposed should only be reclusion perpetua.

With regard to actual damages, the trial court likewise

erred in awarding the sum of P51,000.00 to the heirs of the

victim which must be reduced to P18,000.00 since it is only

the latter amount which is supported by a receipt.14

The bare

testimony of the victims son as to the other expenses was

not substantially corroborated by receipts to prove the same.

The court can only grant actual damages for such expenses
http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

11/12



if they are supported by receipts.15

We affirm the award of

moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. In addition,

the amount of P50,000.00 should also be awarded as civil

_______________

14Exhibit D, Original Record, p. 152.

15People vs. Wilfredo Riglos y Ramos, G.R. No. 134763, September 4,

2000, 339 SCRA 562.

546


People vs. Marcos

indemnity without need of proof other than the commission

of the crime.16

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional

Trial Court of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70, in Criminal

Case No. B-055 dated January 7, 1998 finding appellant

Cesar Marcos y Mon guilty for the crime of murder is hereby

AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty is

hereby reduced to reclusion perpetuaand that appellant is

ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of

P18,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral

damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto. SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena,

Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and

Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.For the circumstance of voluntary surrender, itis sufficient that it be spontaneous and made in a manner

clearly indicating the intent of the accused to surrender

unconditionally, either because he acknowledges his guilt or

he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense

which will necessarily be incurred in searching for and

capturing him. (People vs. Sambulan,289 SCRA 500 [1998])

The law does not find unusual the voluntary surrender of

criminal offendersit merely considers such act as a

mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Nepomuceno, Jr., 298
http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/11/2019 11.2.2. Pp v Marcos

12/12


SCRA 450 [1998])

There is no voluntary surrender where the accused was

arrested by the police. (People vs. Realin, 301 SCRA 495

[1990])

In crimes against chastity, such as rape, relationship is

aggravating. (People vs. Lomerio,326 SCRA 530 [2000])

o0o

_______________

16 People vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000, 334

SCRA 196.

547

Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

11.2.2. pp v marcos

Documents