FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241080. March 3, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. WILFREDO BARRASA, REYNALDO BARRASA, ORLANDO CAIGOY AND RAYMUND CAIGOY, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 3, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241080 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Barrasa, Reynaldo Barrasa, Orlando Caigoy and Raymund Caigoy, Accused-Appellants). — Assailed before this Court is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 22 March 2018 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02209. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City finding herein accused-appellants guilty of murder.
Antecedents
In an Information 2 dated 29 August 2003, accused-appellants Wilfredo Barrasa (Wilfredo), Reynaldo Barrasa (Reynaldo), Orlando Caigoy (Orlando) and Raymund Caigoy (Raymund) and Sergio Miralles (Sergio) (collectively, accused-appellants) were charged with the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7659. The accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows:
That on or about the 21st day of June, 2003, in the municipality of Jaro, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Engr. Jesus Labastida, Jr. with the use of unlicensed homemade shotguns locally known as "surit" which accused provided themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon said victim gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Wilfredo, Reynaldo, Orlando, and Raymund all pleaded "not guilty" 3 Sergio remained at large. Trial on the merits ensued after the pre-trial conference.
Version of the Prosecution
On 08 June 2003, Alfredo Horca Cane (Cane) went to the house of Engr. Jesus Labastida (Jesus) to borrow Php1,000.00 in order to pay the laborers who gathered coconuts for him. 4 When Cane arrived, he heard Jesus and Wilfredo arguing over why the former wanted to have his (Wilfredo's) brothers, Ricky and Jerry, arrested. 5 Cane also heard Wilfredo threaten to kill Jesus if his brothers would be apprehended. 6
In the morning of 21 June 2003, Jose Zabala Pontilan (Pontilan) was walking near the Maitum river when a motorcycle, driven by Dioscoro Labastida (Dioscoro), and Jesus riding at the back, passed by. 7 As the motorcycle was descending towards the river, Wilfredo and Reynaldo, armed with homemade firearms, came out from the tall grass by the road. 8 Wilfredo and Reynaldo then fired at the motorcycle. 9 Pontilan took cover behind a coconut tree 10 but was able to see the motorcycle running in a zigzag manner towards Poblacion of Jaro, Leyte. 11
Pontilan then heard Reynaldo say, "Run[!] Engr. Labastida is going to die, somebody might see us." 12 Reynaldo and Wilfredo started running uphill towards Brgy. San Pedro. Raymund, Orlando, and Sergio then emerged from the grassy area, carrying firearms, and ran toward the same direction. 13
Meanwhile, SPO4 Diosdado Narrido Amado (SPO4 Amado) testified that Jesus, assisted by Dioscoro and Florencio Apordo, had appeared at the Jaro Police Station that same morning to report that he'd been shot by Reynaldo and Wilfredo. 14 SPO4 Amado prepared a police blotter and thereafter helped in transporting Jesus to the hospital. 15
SPO2 Pedro Canillas Mateo (SPO2 Mateo) testified that he went to see Jesus at Bethany Hospital 16 to ask about the incident. Jesus told SPO2 Mateo that Reynaldo and Wilfredo shot him, and that they had three other companions. SPO2 Mateo, however, was not able to execute an affidavit narrating Jesus' statement. 17
Jesus' attending doctor, Dr. Earl Viernes (Dr. Viernes), testified that the victim arrived at Bethany Hospital around 12 o'clock noon on 21 June 2003, complaining of abdominal pain due to gunshot wounds. 18 Dr. Viernes narrated how Jesus tried to tell him of the perpetrators, but it was too soft for the doctor to hear. 19 Jesus sustained gunshot wounds on the left chest, upper arm, and left infrascapular region, leading blood loss and, eventually, death. 20
Dr. Alex Rodriguez Uy (Dr. Uy), the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on Jesus' body, testified that the victim suffered three (3) gunshot wounds. The first gunshot wound was located on the victim's back, which Dr. Uy opined was inflicted while the assailant was behind the victim. 21 Meanwhile, the second gunshot wound was located on the left side of the victim's chest, and the third was at the victim's forearm. 22 Dr. Uy believed that the second and third wounds were inflicted while the assailant was just behind the left side of the victim. 23 He estimated that the distance of the assailant to the victim was around five (5) meters. 24
Jesus' widow, Candida Factor Labastida (Candida) testified that the hospital and funeral expenses amounted to Php925,767.30, but was only able to present Php16,000.00-worth of receipts. 25
Version of the Defense
Orlando claimed that on the day of the incident, he was with his wife and son, Raymund, cutting grass at their farm in Brgy. Atipolo, Jaro, Leyte. 26 He claimed that it was only on 10 August 2003, while he and Raymund were in Manila to meet with his sister, 27 when he learned he was a suspect in Jesus' killing. 28 He alleged that he knew Jesus because the latter's farm was located on the way to their property, 29 but denied that he had a personal misunderstanding with the victim. 30 He also admitted to knowing Wilfredo since they both reside at Brgy. San Agustin. 31
On the other hand, Wilfredo claimed that on the day of Jesus' killing, he was at the barangay hall of Brgy. San Agustin from 8 o'clock until 11 o'clock in the morning processing a Deed of Sale from his cousin, Virgie Barrasa. 32 Erlinda Saliente, the Brgy. Secretary of Brgy. San Agustin corroborated Wilfredo's testimony. 33 Wilfredo admitted knowing Jesus because the latter's farm is located near Brgy. San Agustin. 34
As for accused-appellant Reynaldo, he invoked self-defense. He narrated that on 21 June 2003, he was on his way to his grandparents' farm, when a motorcycle, with Jesus and Dioscoro on board, stopped in front of him. Then saw Jesus draw a pistol on him, while simultaneously telling him not to run. 35 Since he was then carrying a surit, he shot Jesus once. 36 Upon seeing Jesus give Dioscoro his gun, Reynaldo jumped into the creek and ran towards Brgy. Binulho. 37 He claimed that he does not know why Jesus would kill him. 38
Raymund waived his right to testify. 39
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision 40 dated 05 December 2012, the RTC convicted all the accused-appellants for the crime of murder, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They were also ordered to pay Jesus' heirs the amounts of Php294,000.00 as actual damages, Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and costs.
The court gave credence to Pontilan's testimony, positively identifying accused-appellants as the gunmen responsible for Jesus' death. 41 However, it was not persuaded by the alibis of Wilfredo, Orlando and Raymund.
The RTC found that it was physically possible for them to have committed the crime, given the proximity of their supposed locations to the crime scene. Moreover, the trial court found their subsequent actions constituted flight indicative of their guilt. 42 Reynaldo was arrested almost six (6) months after the shooting incident, while Orlando and Raymund two (2) years from the time of the murder.
Likewise, it did not give weight to Reynaldo's claim of self-defense. It was noted that Jesus was unlikely to have drawn a weapon given his awkward position as a back rider in the motorcycle. The court also noted that the multiple gunshot wounds sustained by Jesus were inconsistent with the claim of self-defense. 43
The court ruled that accused-appellants acted in conspiracy when they killed Jesus. All of them hid behind the tall grassy area and positioned themselves strategically along the road, waiting for the victim, before they opened fire. After the shooting, all of them ran away from the scene and in the same direction. 44
Lastly, it found treachery was established given that Jesus was ambushed by accused-appellants. Jesus could not have defended himself from the sudden and unexpected attack. 45
Ruling of the CA
On 22 March 2018, the CA issued a Decision, affirming the decision of the RTC with following modification: 1) the award of civil indemnity ex delicto was increased from Php50,000.00 to Php100,000.00; 2) the award of moral damages was increased from Php75,000.00 to Php100,000.00; 3) the award of actual damages was deleted, and in lieu thereof, temperate damages was awarded in the amount of Php50,000.00; 4) exemplary damages was awarded in the amount of Php100,000.00; and 5) legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum was imposed on all monetary awards from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid.
Issues
For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General 46 (OSG) and the Public Attorney's Office 47 (PAO) manifested they are no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs, and prayed the briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals be considered in resolving the appeal.
In their brief, accused-appellants claim that Pontilan's testimony was inconsistent and should not have been given weight. 48 They also object to the finding of conspiracy, arguing that unity of purpose was not proven. 49 Reynaldo, for his part, insists that he was able to establish the elements of self-defense. 50
In response, the OSG maintains all the elements of the crime of murder had been substantially proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 51 Likewise, accused-appellants' actions were clearly indicative of conspiracy. 52 It also maintained that Reynaldo's claim of self-defense, as well as the accused-appellants' denials, were correctly rejected by the RTC. 53 Thus, it argued that all of them were rightfully convicted of the crime of murder.
With these contentions, the Court is tasked to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellants' conviction for the crime of murder.
Ruling of the Court
All of the accused conspired to
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove two (2) things: (1) the fact of the crime; and (2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. In the instant case, Pontilan positively identified Wilfredo and Reynaldo as the assailants who emerged from the tall grass with firearms, and who fired at the victim. He also identified Raymund, Orlando, and Sergio as the persons who subsequently went out from the grasses, carrying firearms and joined Wilfredo and Reynaldo in fleeing the scene of the crime.
Despite their identification, accused-appellants argue that Orlando and Raymund should be acquitted because their ·actual participation in the shooting incident was not established.
This Court disagrees.
Conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime must be proved separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the offense itself, but from its essential features of secrecy and concealment, it need not be proved by direct evidence. Instead, it is sufficient for conspiracy to be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony, showing they had acted with a common purpose and design. 54 Stated differently, the rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common unlawful design, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. In such a case, the act of one becomes the act of all and each of the accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. 55
In this case, the fact that Pontilan did not see Raymund, Orlando, and Sergio actually shooting Jesus is of no moment. In People v. Musa, 56 this Court ruled that physical presence at the scene of the crime, while being armed with stones and their simultaneous fight all manifest a common design and a unity of purpose and action leading to the indubitable conclusion that they acted in conspiracy. Pontilan clearly testified that Raymund, Orlando, and Sergio were all carrying firearms when they joined Wilfredo and Reynaldo at the scene, and they all ran together after the shooting incident, viz.:
PRIVATE PROSECUTOR ALMOCERA
Q: After the shots were fired, what happened to engr. Labastida?
A: They did not fell (sic) to the ground but instead the motorcycle zigzag and the I heard Angus Barrasa saying "Run, Engr. Labastida is going to die. Somebody might see us."
Q: And how far away were you when you heard the voice or the advice of Angus Barrasa to Wellie Barrasa run somebody might see us?
A: About 15 meters.
Q: And where actually did you place yourself during this period[?] (sic)
A: I went outside the side of the road and took cover. (sic)
Q: Why do you have to do that?
A: Because I was afraid I might be shot.
Q: After Angus Barrasa directed Wellie Barrasa to run, what did the two do after that?
A: They ran towards the upper hill.
Q: After these two persons ran, what happened next?
A: Three (3) men emerged from the side and ran away with them.
Q: Who were these three persons?
A: Pandoy, Raymund and Sergio.
Q: Do you know the surname of Pandoy?
A: Caigoy.
Q: Raymund?
A: Also a Caigoy.
Q: And Sergio?
A: Miralles.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Where was he on June 21, 2003?
A: He was with them and he ran.
Q: When you saw them at about 10:00 o'clock, what was he carrying?
A: He was also carrying a homemade shotgun.
Q: From the place where the shooting by the Barrasa of Engr. Labastida, how far away where these persons when they came out and showed themselves at the road? (sic)
A: They emerged from the place where Angus Barrasa had emerged.
Q: And how far away were you from these persons or the accused when they came out from the place?
A: If I am not mistaken, about 20 meters.
Q: And where did these persons going after the shooting of Engr. Labastida?
A: They ran along with them uphill.
Q: How about the guns which they were carrying, what happened to them?
A: They carried the guns with them. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Raymund, Orlando, and Sergio's presence at the commission of the crime was not by mere coincidence. The fact that they hid behind the tall grass waiting for Jesus, and fled with Wilfredo and Reynaldo upon the latter's order to flee, as well as the fact that they were seen carrying firearms, indicate their agreement to cooperate or their intentional participation in the scheme to commit the crime.
Treachery was established
This Court likewise agrees with the RTC and CA that Pontilan's testimony established the element of treachery.
Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. 57 The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself. 58
The evidence in the instant case highlights that Jesus' death was through an ambush. Ambush exemplifies the nature of treachery. 59 Accused-appellants insured the success of their evil motives by ensuring that the victim had no means to defend himself. They hid among the tall grass and suddenly fired at the unsuspecting victim as he passed by in a motorcycle. Certainly, Jesus had been caught unaware, leaving him with no actual opportunity to evade the attack.
The qualifying circumstances of
To properly appreciate evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance, it is indispensable that the fact of planning the crime be established. Particularly, evidence must show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. Absent such proof, evident premeditation cannot prosper. 60
In this case, while it is true that Jesus and Wilfredo argued weeks before the ambush, it was not shown when and how accused-appellants devised a plan to kill Jesus. Time and again, this Court has ruled that mere lapse of time is insufficient to establish evident premeditation. 61
Likewise, this Court finds the prosecution failed to prove the use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime. Although it was alleged in the information, the prosecution did not submit any proof that the firearms used in the killing were recovered. While Pontilan testified that Jesus was shot using homemade firearms, such statement is insufficient to qualify the offense. The Court has previously ruled that in addition to proof of existence of a firearm, written or testimonial evidence must also be presented to prove that the accused did not have a license to carry or own the same. 62 No such proof was presented in this case.
In all, accused-appellants' guilt has been proven with moral certainty. Their authorship of the crime was established by Pontilan's testimony and corroborated by Jesus' statements prior to his death. For a dying declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4) conditions must concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide where the declarant is the victim. 63
In the case at bar, Jesus gave his statements to SPO4 Amado that he was shot by Wilfredo and Reynaldo. Meanwhile, he told SPO2 Mateo that three (3) other men were with Wilfredo and Reynaldo during the shooting incident. Jesus' statements constitute a dying declaration. They pertained to the cause and circumstances of his death. Taking into consideration the severity of his wounds, and the fact that he died soon after his operation, it may be reasonably presumed that he made those statements under the belief that death was already imminent.
Likewise, Jesus 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 Jesus was the victim.
In view of the foregoing evidence, this Court finds that accused-appellants' guilt for murder has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also relevant to note that the number and location of wounds on the victims body are consistent with the prosecution's narrative that Jesus was shot while on board a moving motorcycle.
The elements of self-defense
It is settled that when an accused pleads self-defense, he admits to his authorship of the crime or offense committed. It then becomes incumbent upon him to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of the justifying circumstances to the satisfaction of the court. 64 Thus, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack. 65 Otherwise, if the accused fails to establish the concurrence of the elements of self-defense, his conviction follows.
Reynaldo maintains that Jesus, while on a motorcycle, suddenly stopped in front of him, and attempted to draw his pistol. He allegedly pre-empted Jesus by shooting him first. Based on Reynaldo's own account, this Court finds that the requirement of the victim's unlawful aggression has not been established. Unlawful aggression is predicated on an actual, sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger — not merely a threatening or intimidating action. 66 The mere thrusting of one's hand into his pocket as if for the purpose of drawing a weapon does not constitute unlawful aggression. 67
Further, as correctly found by the RTC, 68 the number and location of victim's wounds, and the fact that Reynaldo sustained none, belie the assertion of self-defense. Jesus' autopsy report stated that one of his wounds was in the left chest which lacerated his spleen, stomach, and intestine. 69 Dr. Uy also testified that by the nature of Jesus' wounds, he would have survived only for about two (2) or three (3) hours. By no acceptable standard can this Court conclude that the means Reynaldo employed was reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the alleged attack.
The penalty to be imposed on
Article 248 of the RPC punishes murder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. 70 Pursuant to Article 63 (2), 71 there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the commission of the offense (except for treachery which qualified the killing to murder), the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua, together with the accessory penalty provided by law.
As to indemnity, this Court, has held that for crimes like murder where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant shall be held liable for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of Php75,000.00 each. 72 Meanwhile in People v. Racal, 73 the Court ruled that an award of temperate damages is proper when the amount of actual damages proven by receipts during the trial is less than the sum allowed by the Court as temperate damages.
In this case, Candida submitted a summary of expenses in the amount of Php925,767.30 allegedly incurred for Jesus' hospitalization and funeral expense. However, only Php16,000.00 thereof was supported by receipts. In conformity with People v. Racal, the temperate damages of Php50,000.00 should be awarded instead of the damages substantiated by the receipts. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated 22 March 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 02209, finding accused-appellants WILFREDO BARRASA, REYNALDO BARRASA, ORLANDO CAIGOY and RAYMUND CAIGOY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. They are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Jesus T. Labastida, Jr. Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of Php50,000.00 as temperate damages is AFFIRMED.
All the monetary awards shall incur legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-27; penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of the Court) and Edward B. Contreras of the Nineteenth (19th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2. Records, p. 1.
3.Id. at 61.
4. TSN dated 28 March 2005, pp. 4-5.
5.Id. at 6.
6.Id. at 7.
7. TSN dated 22 March 2005, pp. 10-11.
8.Id. at 12.
9.Id. at 14.
10.Id. at 15.
11.Id. at 25-27, 30-32.
12.Id. at 14.
13.Id. at 15.
14. TSN dated 06 October 2004, pp. 9-11.
15.Id. at 12-13.
16. TSN dated 05 October 2004, p. 5.
17.Id. at 6-9.
18. TSN dated 12 October 2004, pp. 4-9.
19.Id. at 12.
20.Id. at 24.
21. TSN dated 29 March 2005, pp. 10-11.
22.Id. at 23-24.
23.Id. at 24.
24.Id. at 28.
25. TSN dated 07 June 2005, p. 7.
26. TSN dated 17 August 2005, p. 6.
27.Id. at 10.
28.Id. at 12.
29.Id. at 7.
30.Id. at 9.
31.Id. at 8-9.
32. TSN dated 14 October 2008, p. 3.
33. TSN dated 08 January 2008, pp. 3-6.
34. TSN dated 09 July 2010, p. 12.
35. TSN dated 01 December 2010, pp. 6-7.
36.Id. at 7.
37.Id. at 8.
38.Id. at 19.
39. CA rollo, p. 57.
40.Id. at 47-66; penned by Presiding Judge Alphinor C. Serrano.
41.Id. at 58-59.
42.Id. at 59-61.
43.Id. at 61-62.
44.Id. at 63-64.
45.Id. at 62-63.
46.Rollo, pp. 36-37.
47.Id. at 52-54.
48. CA rollo, pp. 29-33.
49.Id. at 3-39.
50.Id. at 39-42.
51.Id. at 83-90.
52.Id. at 90-92.
53.Id. at 93-97.
54.People v. Abes, 465 Phil. 165 (2004); G.R. No. 138937, 20 January 2004 [Per J. Quisumbing].
55.Id.
56.People v. Musa, 452 Phil. 165 (2003); G.R. No. 137042, 17 June 2003 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].
57.People v. Daroya, G.R. No. 229502, 08 November 2017 (Per J. Reyes, Jr.].
58.People v. Bugarin, 807 Phil. 588 (2017); G.R. No. 224900, 15 March 2017 [Per J. Peralta].
59.People v. Adriano, 764 Phil. 144 (2015); G.R. No. 205228, 15 July 2015 [Per J. Perez]; see also Lumanog v. People, 644 Phil. 296 (2010); G.R. Nos. 182555, 185123 & 187745, 07 September 2010; People v. Agpawan, 393 Phil. 434 (2000); G.R. No. 123853, 25 August 2000 [Per J. Bellosillo].
60.People v. Maglente, 722 Phil. 388 (2013); G.R. No. 201445, 27 November 2013 [Per J. Reyes].
61.People v. Agramon, G.R. No. 212156, 20 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
62.People v. Camat, 692 Phil. 55 (2012); G.R. No. 188612, 30 July 2012 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro]; People v. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701 (2009); G.R. No. 179943, 26 June 2009 [Per J. Peralta].
63.People v. Palanas, 760 Phil. 964 (2015); G.R. No. 214453, 17 June 2015 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
64.See People v. Manzano, G.R. No. 217974, 05 March 2018 [Per J. Martires].
65.People v. Escarlos, 457 Phil. 580 (2003); G.R. No. 148912, 10 September 2003 [Per J. Panganiban].
66.People v. Siega, G.R. No. 213273, 27 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
67.People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 224498, 11 January 2018 [Per J. Tijam] citing People v. Rubiso, 447 Phil. 374 (2003); G.R. No. 128871, 18 March 2003 [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez].
68. CA rollo, p. 62.
69.Id. at 53.
70.People v. Tica, 817 Phil. 588 (2017); G.R. No. 222561, 30 August 2017 [Per J. Peralta].
71. Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. x x x
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
xxx xxx xxx
72.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 233104, 02 September 2020 [Per J. Hernando].
73. G.R. No. 224886, 817 Phil. 665 (2017); 04 September 2017 [Per J. Peralta].