People v. Ordon

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 204892. June 23, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. PERFECTO ORDON and RYAN ELICANAL, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 204892 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. PERFECTO ORDON and RYAN ELICANAL, accused-appellants). — This Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by Perfecto Ordon (Ordon) and Ryan Elicanal (Elicanal) (collectively, accused-appellants) seeks to reverse and set aside the May 23, 2012 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04828, affirming with modification the Joint Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, dated November 29, 2010, in Criminal Case Nos. MC-06-10143-44, which found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and attempted murder.

The Case

Two Informations 4 were filed charging accused-appellants with murder and attempted murder, the accusatory portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. MC-06-10143 (Murder)

That on or about the 5th day of December 2005, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with @ John and @ Adrian, whose true identities and present whereabouts are still unknown, mutually helping and aiding another, armed with a bottle of beer and bladed weapon, with intent to kill, and with qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the use of the same weapon one Nonato Quines Y Pabale, stabbing him on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter, mortal wounds which directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Criminal Case No. MC-06-10144 (Attempted Murder)

That on or about the 5th day of December 2005, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together with @ John and @ Adrian, whose true identities and present whereabouts are still unknown, mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, armed with bottles of beer and bladed weapon and attended with evident premeditation and use of superior strength, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously aimed a bladed weapon, thrusted the same to one Rene Socorro y Moreno, thus commencing the commission of the crime of Murder directly by overt acts but did not produce the crime of murder by reason of cause other than his own spontaneous desistance.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Among the four accused, only accused-appellants were arrested. The two unidentified accused remain at large. When arraigned, accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. 7 Pre-trial conference was then conducted whereby the following facts were stipulated upon by the defense and the prosecution:

(1) the jurisdiction of this court; (2) the identities of the accused as the same persons who are charged in the information; (3) that on December 5, 2005 at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening, the deceased Nonato Quines, then 63 years old, together with Rene Socorro and the latter's nephew Edward Socorro were having a drinking spree at the Kabayashi Videoke Bar and Restaurant owned by Imelda C. Dela Rosa located at the corner of Shaw Boulevard[,] A. Luna Mencias Street, Brgy. Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City; (4) that on said date and time all four (4) accused were also inside the said Kabayashi Videoke Bar; (5) that aside from the above-mentioned persons, there were other persons inside the bar at that time; (6) that at about that time, a commotion ensued involving the deceased, Rene Socorro and Edward Socorro on one side and the four (4) accused on the other side inside the bar; (7) that Rene Socorro was attacked but did not sustain any stab wounds because the waitress thereat shielded him from his attackers; (8) that after the commotion, Nonato Quines was found sprawled on the cement floor of the videoke bar blooded with several stab wounds in the different parts of his body; (9) that Nonato Quines, Rene Socorro and Edward Socorro were not armed with any bladed weapon and guns when they went to the Kabayashi Videoke Bar, as in fact no weapon was recovered from their persons during the police investigation and no witness had stated to that effect; (10) that after the commotion accused Perfecto Odon, Dranrib and Ryan both surnamed Elicanal left the Kabayashi Videoke bar; (11) that this case was investigated by PO1 Ronald Jacuba, as such he took the sworn statement of complainants Rene Socorro, Lino Quines, Joint Affidavit of witnesses and referred the case to the Prosecutor's Office for Preliminary Investigation; (12) that PO1 Ronald Jacuba learned about the stabbing incident after someone informed their headquarters that there was a victim of stabbing that was brought to Mandaluyong Medical Hospital; (13) that at the hospital PO1 Ronaldo Jacuba saw the deceased Nonato Quines; (14) that from the hospital, PO1 Ronaldo Jacuba proceeded to the crime scene but found the place where the alleged incident happened already clean. 8

After pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented four witnesses to prove its case. 9 For the defense, accused-appellants testified on their behalf.

The Antecedents

Prosecution's Version of Facts

At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of December 5, 2005, Rene Socorro (Socorro), Edward Socorro (Edward) and Nonato Quines (Quines) entered the Kabayashi Videoke Bar (bar) and occupied a table. They were visiting the bar for they want to have a feel of the place before purchasing it. Lorie Figueroa, one of those charged in the Information, sat with them while texting. Socorro happened to read her message on her phone, "dito na sila." 10

At around 11:00 o'clock that same night, accused-appellants, together with two unknown persons, entered the bar. Elicanal suddenly threw a bottle at Quines. Thereafter, a commotion followed. During the chaos, Ordon was seen stabbing Quines three times. One of the witnesses, Archiel Torres (Torres), a waitress in the bar, saw the whole incident. She tried to pull Quines away but failed. Quines, who was already wounded, fell down after the stabbing. Ordon, thereafter, fled the bar. 11

Meanwhile, Socorro, prior to the commotion, went to the comfort room (CR) to urinate. He then heard shouting and breaking of glasses. When he went out of the CR, someone hit him with a bottle on the mouth. He slipped in a pool of blood and saw Quines lying down on the floor while two persons were attacking him. He was then pulled by two employees under the counter, who positioned themselves over them. 12

Torres, an eyewitness, saw Elicanal attempting to stab Socorro but failed because of the height of the counter and the intervening employees. Elicanal then turned to the already down Quines and stabbed him once before leaving. 13

After the incident, Quines was brought to the Mandaluyong General Hospital, where he expired. 14

Defense's Version of Facts

On December 5, 2005, at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Ordon invited Elicanal and his friends, Adrian and Jojo, to go to Kabayashi Bar. They saw Quines and Socorro occupying a table. On his way to the counter, Quines boxed him, so Ordon boxed him back. Ordon then left the bar and went to a friend in Wack-Wack. 15

Elicanal testified that when he and his friends, Adrian and Ordon, were about to enter Kabayashi Bar, they were warned by Adrian that their enemies were inside. When Elicanal stepped inside, a bottle hit his face, which caused him to fall. He was then carried outside by his cousin. Elicanal then left the bar. 16

The RTC Ruling

The RTC rendered a Decision finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the eyewitness, Torres, who saw the entire incident and who was able to positively identify the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crimes. 17 She testified that it was Elicanal who threw bottles on Quines, followed by stabbing of the latter by Ordon. She also recounted that it was Elicanal who threw bottles at Socorro and tried to stab him to no avail. 18

The trial court likewise inferred conspiracy from the acts of all the accused. It explained that "[t]he spontaneity of their movements displayed a common design to kill both." 19

Finally, the trial court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery present. It ratiocinated that accused-appellants assaulted the victims in a rapid and organized manner. 20 Accordingly, the trial court disposed of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused PERFECTO ORDON Y TENEFRANCIA and RYAN ELICANAL Y PAMPLIGA GUILTY in the above-entitled cases, and hereby sentences them, thus:

(1) In Criminal Case No. MC-06-10143 for Murder, although the imposable penalty for the offense of Murder is Death, in consideration of Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty, this Court is constrained to impose and hereby imposes the penalty of reclusionperpetua.

(2) In Criminal Case No. MC-06-10144 for Attempted Murder, both accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 1 month and 1 day of ArrestoMayor as minimum to 6 months and 1 day of PrisionCorreccional as maximum.

Further, both accused are ordered to solidarily pay the heirs of Nonato Quines Y Pabale the amount of PHP35,000 as actual damages representing funeral expenses, PHP75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and PHP50,000.00 as moral damages. In addition, lost earning capacity in the amount of PHP360,000.00 is awarded as enunciated in People of the Philippines v. Rolly Gidoc.

SO ORDERED. 21

Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 22 promulgated on May 23, 2012, the CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC as to the award of damages to Quines' family. The CA affirmed the credibility of Torres, who positively and clearly identified Ordon and Elicanal as the assailants of Quines and Socorro. The CA further ruled that although Socorro failed to identify his assailant, he was able to narrate that somebody was trying to reach him from the front of the counter with a knife. This was corroborated by the eyewitness, Torres, who saw a knife-wielding Elicanal attempting to reach Socorro from outside the counter. 23 The CA likewise ruled that accused-appellants conspired to attack and kill Socorro and Quines. 24 Finally, the CA affirmed that the attack on Socorro and Quines was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. 25 The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is DENIED. The Joint Decision dated 29 November 2010 of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. [MC-06-10143-44] is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, as follows: 1) That the accused-appellants are ordered to solidarily pay to the heirs of Nonato Quines Y Pabale, instead of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, only the amount of Php50,000.00; 2) That accused-appellants are likewise ordered to solidarily pay, in addition to the amounts previously awarded by the trial court, an additional Php25,000.00 representing exemplary damages; 3) that in Criminal Case No. MC-06-10144 for Attempted Murder, the accused-appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prisioncorreccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum; and, 4) that both accused-appellants are likewise ordered solidarily liable to pay the amounts of Php20,000.00, as civil indemnity, and Php10,000.00 and Php25,000.00, as moral and exemplary damages, respectively to Rene Boy Socorro.

SO ORDERED. 26

Undaunted, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal 27 under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Issue

Whether the guilt of accused-appellants for murder and attempted murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court's Ruling

The instant appeal is unmeritorious.

Accused-appellants continuously insist that the prosecution failed to positively identify the accused-appellants as the assailants who killed Quines and who attempted against the life of Socorro due to several inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. 28 They likewise averred that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery considering that prior to the alleged stabbing, a commotion ensued after throwing bottles, which gave an opportunity to Quines and Socorro to either retaliate or retreat. 29

This Court is not persuaded.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states:

Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusiontemporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

xxx xxx xxx

Jurisprudence dictates that to be convicted of the crime of murder, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 30

Meanwhile, the essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows: 1) the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; 2) he does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; 3) the offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; and 4) the non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. 31

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;

(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. 32

Based on the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, of the prosecution, this Court finds all the elements of murder and attempted murder present in this case.

There is no need to dwell on the first and fourth elements of the crime of murder. It has been established that Quines died after he was stabbed inside the Kabayashi Bar on that fateful night. Likewise, the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. The issues left to be resolved in this case are whether accused-appellants are the perpetrators of the crimes and whether there exists a circumstance that would qualify the killing of Quines and the attempt on the life of Socorro to the crime of murder and attempted murder.

Torres, a waitress in the Kabayashi Bar and the main eyewitness, was able to positively identify accused-appellants as the culprits. The gist of her testimony, as summarized by the trial court, is as follows:

x x x On the night of December 5, 2005, witness was on duty particularly serving the tables being occupied by Boy Soc Socorro, Edward Socorro and Nonato Quines or Kuya Nani who entered the restaurant past 9:00 in the evening. Torres recalled that at around 11:45, four men went inside the Kabayashi bar but she only knew two of them namely Perfecto Ordon alias "Bong Bong" and Ryan Elicanal alias "Jon Jon." Then one of them, Ryan Elicanal, threw a bottle at Kuya Nani resulting to a commotion in the club. In the midst of disorder, she saw Perfecto Ordon stabbing Kuya Nani three times while Ryan Elicanal was throwing a bottle to Boy Socorro who had just gone from the comfort room. When Kuya Nani was being stabbed, witness was infront of him at a distance of two (2) meters so she tried to pull Kuya Nani away from Perfecto Ordon but was unable to do so. As a result, Kuya Nani fell down. She pacified accused Ordo by uttering, "tama na, tama na, bagsak na si Kuya Nani" prompting the latter to move away and get out of Kabayashi bar. At this point, she also saw Kuya Boy Soc under the counter and Ryan was outside the counter trying to reach and stab him with a knife. When Ryan Elicanal failed to achieve his purpose, he turned his attention to the prostrate Kuya Nani stabbing him once and subsequently left. Thereafter, witness and three other companions Irene, Angeline and Flory were brought to the police station to give their statements regarding the incident. In open court, witness positively identified Perfecto Ordon and Ryan Elicanal. 33

Torres' testimony is corroborated by Socorro. He testified, as summarized by the trial court, that while inside the comfort room, he heard a commotion inside the bar. When he went out of the CR, something hit him in the mouth. Thereafter, he slipped in a pool of blood and fell. He then saw his friend Quines lying on the floor while two persons were in the process of attacking him. Fortunately, two employees of the bar pulled him to the inner portion of the counter and positioned themselves in front of him. At this point, one of the attackers was trying to stab him but was not able to reach him. At the same time, he heard someone say, "Bong, Jojo, tama na, tama na." He then stood up and saw the attackers running away from the place. 34

Torres' testimony, as corroborated by the testimony of Socorro, clearly points to accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crimes. Torres actually saw that it was Ordon who stabbed Quines, while it was Elicanal who attempted to stab Socorro but failed to do so; and before leaving the place, Elicanal stabbed Quines once. With the positive and categorical identification of the accused-appellants as the culprits, the prosecution was able to establish the second element of the crime of murder.

Anent the third element, the prosecution's evidence demonstrates that there is prima facie fact showing the presence of the element of treachery.

Treachery is 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. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 35 Treachery is not presumed but must be proved as conclusively as the crime itself. 36

Further, there are two requirements in order that treachery may be appreciated: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself when attacked; and, (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of one's attack against the victim. 37 These two requisites are present in this case.

To recall, the attack against Quines and Socorro was sudden and unexpected. As testified to by Torres, Elicanal threw a bottle at Quines resulting in a commotion. It is during this commotion that Ordon stabbed Quines thrice, which led to his demise. Someone also threw a bottle at Socorro after going out from the CR. 38 It may be deduced that after bottles were thrown at Quines and Socorro, they were surprised and distracted, if not disoriented, which left them vulnerable to attacks. It may be deduced further that accused-appellants deliberately used such chaos and disorder to execute their evil plan against Quines and Socorro and to negate the possibility for Quines and Socorro to fight back and defend themselves. Such a method squarely falls within the definition of treachery.

As regards the crime of attempted murder, it is evident from the above discussion that accused-appellants, thru Elicanal, attempted to kill and stab Socorro. He tried to reach and stab Socorro, who was then under the counter. Unfortunately for the accused-appellants, Elicanal was not able to consummate the crime due to the intervention of two employees. This is the very essence of an attempted felony — the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 39

Finally, this Court holds and so rules that the prosecution was able to prove conspiracy between accused-appellants.

Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 40 As discussed in the case of People v. Dollendo, et al.: 41

[T]o be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act x x x. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. 42

It is likewise settled that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused — before, during and after the crime — which are indicative of design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. 43

Conspiracy between accused-appellants was established from the spontaneity of their movements displaying a common design to kill Quines and Socorro. As records show, after Elicanal threw a bottle at Quines and while Ordon was stabbing Quines, Elicanal confronted Socorro and was also trying to stab him. Records further show that after he failed to stab Socorro, a frustrated Elicanal turned his attention to Quines and stabbed him once before leaving. 44 It is, therefore, beyond cavil that accused-appellants have a common intent, i.e., to attack and kill the victims. In fact, had luck not been on Socorro's side, he would have also died like his friend, Quines.

From all the foregoing, this Court holds and so rules that accused-appellants failed to overturn the prosecution's evidence pointing to their guilt for the crimes of murder and attempted murder. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court and the CA.

The Penalty

While the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of murder, it is important to stress that this is due to the application of Article 63 (2) 45 of the RPC, which states that the lesser of the two indivisible penalties, i.e., reclusion perpetua, shall be imposed upon the accused-appellants in view of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, not Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty.

The penalty for murder at the time of its commission was reclusion temporal maximum to death. 46 There being three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was proved in this case, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. 47 Accordingly, accused-appellants must suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua.

As regards the award of damages, however, further modification must be made in view of this Court's ruling in People v.Jugueta. 48 Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. MC-06-10143 for murder, the award of civil and moral damages are increased to P75,000.00 each. Exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 is awarded. Meanwhile the award of P35,000.00 as actual damages and P365,000.00 as loss of earning capacity is retained.

As to Criminal Case No. MC-06-10144 for attempted murder, the penalty shall be prisionmayor, since Article 51 of the RPC states that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. 49 Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this case, the maximum of the sentence should be within the range of prisionmayor in its medium term, which has a duration of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; and that the minimum should be within the range of prisioncorreccional, which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Therefore, the penalty imposed should have been imprisonment from six (6) years of prisoncorreccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prisionmayor, as maximum. 50

Further modification as to the award of damages is necessary still pursuant to People v. Jugueta. 51 Thus, accused-appellants are ordered to solidarily pay Socorro civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 each.

All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed May 23, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04828, is AFFIRMEDwithModification in that:

1. In Criminal Case No. MC-06-10143 for murder, accused-appellants Perfecto Ordon and Ryan Elicanal are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua; and to pay solidarily the heirs of Nonato Quines the amounts of: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; (d) P35,000.00 as actual damages; and (e) P360,000.00 as loss of earning capacity;

2. In Criminal Case No. MC-06-10144 for attempted murder, both accused-appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years of prisioncorreccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prison mayor, as maximum; and to pay solidarily Rene Socorro the amounts of: (a) P25,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P25,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.

All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interestperannum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SOORDERED."

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. 17-18.

2.Id. at 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Hakim Abdulwahid and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 32-42; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ofelia L. Calo.

4.Id. at 16-19.

5.Id. at 18.

6.Id. at 16-17.

7.Id. at 33.

8.Id. at 33-34.

9.Id. at 34.

10.Rollo, p. 5.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 6.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id.

17. CA rollo, p. 38.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 40.

20.Id.

21.Id. at 41-42.

22.Rollo, pp. 2-16.

23.Id. at 9-10.

24.Id. at 12-13.

25.Id. at 13-14.

26.Id. at 15.

27.Id. at 17-18.

28. CA rollo, pp. 63-67.

29.Id. at 69-70.

30.People v. Archivido, G.R. No. 233085, September 21, 2020.

31.Fantastico, et al. v. Malicse, Sr., et al., 750 Phil. 120, 131 (2015).

32.Id.

33. CA rollo, p. 34.

34.Id. at 35.

35.People v. Las Piñas, et al., 739 Phil. 502, 524 (2014).

36.People v. Bugarin, 807 Phil. 588, 598-599 (2017).

37.People v. Abina, et al., 830 Phil. 352, 361 (2018).

38. CA rollo, pp. 34-35.

39.Fantastico, et al. v. Malicse, Sr., et al., supra note 31 at 131.

40.People v. Jesalva, 811 Phil. 299, 307-308 (2017).

41. 679 Phil. 338 (2012).

42.Id. at 349, citing People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 429 (2004).

43.People v. Quinicio, 417 Phil. 571, 586 (2001).

44. CA rollo, pp. 5-6.

45. 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:

xxx xxx xxx

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

xxx xxx xxx

46. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248

Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusiontemporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

xxx xxx xxx

47.Id. at Article 77.

Article 77. When the Penalty is a Complex One Composed of Three Distinct Penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this book, the periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.

48. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

49. Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.

50.Fantastico, et al. v. Malicse, Sr., et al., supra note 31 at 139-140.

51.Supra note 48.