Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

169425 March 4, 2008

ROBERTO LICY YO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE O! T"E P"ILIPPINES, Respondent. D C"ICO#N $ RIO, J.: In this Petition for Revie" on Certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt,% petitioner Roberto &ic'a'o pra's for the reversal of the Decision dated ( Ma' )**$ ) and Resolution dated %) +u,ust )**$- of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+./.R. !R No. )0-$1, affir2in, "ith 2odification the Decision# dated )* 3ebruar' )**- of the Re,ional Trial !ourt 4RT!5 of &a,a"e, Ifu,ao, 6ranch %#, in !ri2inal !ases No. 719 and 720, convictin, petitioner of Ho2icide under +rticle )#1 of the Revised Penal !ode in !ri2inal !ase No. 719 "hile dis2issin, !ri2inal !ase No. 720 for Direct +ssault as re,ards hi2.$ The factual antecedents are as follo"s8 On % 3ebruar' %11-, an Infor2ation( in !ri2inal !ase No. 719 "as filed before the RT! char,in, petitioner, his brother +ron &ic'a'o 4+ron5, Paul 6a,uilat 4Paul5 and Oliver 6u'a'o 4Oliver5 "ith Ho2icide under +rticle )#1 of the Revised Penal !ode 9uoted as follo"s8 The undersi,ned Provincial Prosecutor, hereb' accuses RO6 RTO &I!:+:O, O&IV R 6;:+:O, +RON &I!:+:O, and P+;& 6+/;I&+T, of the cri2e of HOMI!ID and co22itted as follo"s8 That on or about the %(th da' of 3ebruar', %11), in the Municipalit' of <ian,an, Ifu,ao, and "ithin the =urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above.na2ed accused conspirin,, confederatin, and 2utuall' helpin, one another and "ith intent to >ill, DID then and there "illfull', unla"full' and feloniousl' attac>, assault one Rufino /ua', stabbin, hi2 "ith the use of a double bladed "eapon, thereb' inflictin, upon the victi2 several stab "ounds "hich directl' caused his death. On %% Ma' %11-, an +2ended Infor2ation0 in !ri2inal !ase No. 720 "as filed before the RT! accusin, petitioner of Direct +ssault under +rticle %#7 of the Revised Penal !ode, viz8 That on or about the %(th of 3ebruar' %11), in the Municipalit' of <ian,an, Ifu,ao, and "ithin the =urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above.na2ed accused, DID then and there "illfull', unla"full' and feloniousl' attac> and assault PO- Mi,uel 6u'a'o "ith the use of a bladed "eapon "hile the victi2 "as in the perfor2ance of his official duties as a police2an "hich fact "as >no"n to the accused. Subse9uentl', these cases "ere consolidated for =oint trial. In !ri2inal !ase No. 7 19, petitioner, +ron and Paul pleaded ?Not /uilt'? to the char,e of ho2icide, 7 "hile the other accused, Oliver, "as !ISION

not arrai,ned.1 @ith respect to !ri2inal !ase No. 720, petitioner "as not arrai,ned. %* Thereafter, trial on the 2erits ensued. The prosecution presented as "itnesses three 2e2bers of the Philippine National Police 4PNP5, <ian,an, Ifu,ao, na2el', Aoseph Dan,la' 4Officer Dan,la'5, Mi,uel 6u'a'o 4Officer 6u'a'o5 and +lfonso 6a,uilat 4Officer 6a,uilat5B and three other persons na2el', Aeffre' Malin,an 4Aeffre'5, Ai22' /ua' 4Ai22'5, and Aose /ua' 4Aose5. Their testi2onies, "oven to,ether, bear the follo"in,8 On %( 3ebruar' %11), victi2 Rufino /ua' 4Rufino5, alon, "ith his friends, Aeffre' and a certain Aoel Du2an,en, 4Aoel5 attended a "eddin, at Mabbalat, <ian,an, Ifu,ao. Petitioner, to,ether "ith his friends, Paul and Oliver, "ere also present at the sa2e "eddin,. +fter the "eddin, reception, Rufino, Aeffre' and Aoel "ent to Nata2aCs Store at the <ian,an Public Mar>et and ordered t"o bottles of ,in. @hile the three "ere drin>in, ,in at the said store, petitioner, Paul and Oliver arrived and li>e"ise ordered bottles of ,in. &ater, petitioner, Paul and Oliver left the store. Subse9uentl', Rufino, Aeffre' and Aoel li>e"ise ad=ourned their drin>in, session and left the store. %% Rufino, Aeffre' and Aoel dropped b' at 3a2orcaCs Store. Petitioner and his brother, +ron, as "ell as Paul and Oliver, "ere also present therein. @hile Aeffre' "as tal>in, to the storeCs o"ner, &arr' 3a2orca 4&arr'5, a bra"l suddenl' occurred bet"een Rufino and +ron. +s a conse9uence thereof, Rufino fell to the ,round. +ron thereafter placed hi2self on top of Rufino and punched the latter several ti2es. Aeffre' approached the t"o and tried to pacif' the2. Paul entered the scene and punched Aeffre' on the head. Thereupon, a scuffle follo"ed. %) Officers Dan,la', 6u'a'o and 6a,uilat "ere on their "a' ho2e fro2 the <ian,an Police Station "hen the' heard so2e individuals callin, for police assistance re,ardin, the co22otion. The three officers rushed to the scene. ;pon arrivin, thereat, the' sa" petitioner holdin, a siD.inch double. bladed >nife and "al>in, to"ards Rufino and +ron "ho "ere then "restlin, "ith each other. Officer 6u'a'o, then "earin, onl' civilian clothes and unar2ed, approached petitioner and held the latterCs bac> collar to prevent hi2 fro2 =oinin, the fra'. Petitioner turned around, faced Officer 6u'a'o, and tried to stab the latter but he 2issed. Officer 6u'a'o retreated. The officers introduced the2selves to petitioner as police2en and pleaded "ith hi2 to put do"n the >nife. Petitioner i,nored the officersC pleas.%+fter"ards, petitioner approached Rufino, "ho "as then "restlin, "ith Paul, and stabbed Rufino in different parts of the bod'.%# Officer 6a,uilat fired a "arnin, shot "hile Officer Dan,la' i22ediatel' pounced on petitioner and disar2ed the latter.%$ Petitioner "as brou,ht to the <ian,an Police Station "hile Rufino "as ta>en to a nearb' hospital "here he later died due to stab "ounds. %( The prosecution also presented docu2entar' and ob=ect evidence to bolster the testi2onies of its "itnesses, to "it8 4%5 s"orn state2ents of Officer Dan,la', Officer 6u'a'o, Officer 6a,uilat, Aeffre', Ai22', Aose and +rsenioB%04)5 death certificate of RufinoB%7 4-5 certification fro2 the Ifu,ao /eneral Hospital statin, that Rufino sustained several stab "ounds "hich directl' caused his deathB %1 and 4#5 the >nife used b' the petitioner in stabbin, Rufino. )* 3or its part, the defense proffered the testi2onies of petitioner and his corroboratin, "itnesses .. Daniel !a'on, 4Daniel5, +ron, and Paul .. to refute the fore,oin, accusations. Their version of the incident is as follo"s8 On the 2ornin, of %( 3ebruar' %11), petitioner attended a "eddin, at Mabbalat, <ian,an, Ifu,ao. +fter the "eddin,, petitioner 2et Paul and the' proceeded to the <ian,an Public Mar>et "here the' chanced on Oliver, a certain <i2a'on, and 3ernando "ho invited the2 for a drin> in one of the stores near the 2ar>et. &ater, Rufino, Aeffre' and Aoel entered the store "here petitionerCs ,roup

"as drin>in, and occupied a separate table. Aeffre' and Aoel approached petitionerCs ,roup and sat at their table. Aeffre' shoo> and pressed hard the hand of Oliver. The storeo"ner si,nalled petitionerCs ,roup to pa' its bills and leave. Petitioner brou,ht out his "allet to pa' their bills but Aeffre', "ho "as still holdin, and pressin, OliverCs hand, told hi2 to bu' another bottle. Petitioner pleaded "ith Aeffre' to let ,o of OliverCs hand because the latter is his friend. Aeffre', ho"ever, "arned hi2 not to interfere if he did not "ant to ,et involved. Petitioner ,lanced at the storeCs door and sa" Rufino standin, therein. Thereafter, Ai22' passed b' in front of the store and 2ade a si,nal to Rufino, Aeffre' and Aoel. Petitioner, Paul and Oliver paid their bills, left the store and proceeded to Sa>ai Store.)% Subse9uentl', Aeffre' and a co2panion "ent to 3a2orcaCs Store and sa" +ron and Daniel seated in one of the benches outside the store. Aeffre' then told his co2panion "Can you tackle his brother?" Sensin, that he "as the brother bein, referred to b' Aeffre' and a trouble 2i,ht occur, +ron "ent inside the store but Aeffre' follo"ed hi2. Thus, +ron "ent outside the store and sat on one of the benches nearb'. +fter"ards, Rufino arrived at the store and approached +ron. Rufino held the collar of +ronCs shirt and punched the latter on the left chee>. Aeffre' also approached +ron and ,rabbed the latterCs ar2. +ron fou,ht bac> but he fell to the ,round. )) Daniel i22ediatel' proceeded to Sa>ai Store and told petitioner that +ron "as bein, 2auled. Petitioner "ent to the scene and sa" Rufino and Aeffre' punchin, +ron "ho "as spra"led on the ,round. Petitioner pushed Aeffre' a"a' but the latterCs other co2panions suddenl' arrived and started hittin, hi2. Petitioner fou,ht bac> but he "as overpo"ered. Petitioner cannot recall an'2ore the subse9uent events that transpired. )+fter trial, the RT! rendered a Decision dated )* 3ebruar' )**-, findin, petitioner ,uilt' of ho2icide in !ri2inal !ase No. 719. It ac9uitted +ron and Paul because the prosecution failed to prove the eDistence of conspirac'. It did not rule on the liabilit' of Oliver because he "as not arrai,ned in the said case. 3urther, it dis2issed !ri2inal !ase No. 720 for direct assault because petitioner "as not arrai,ned therein.)# The dispositive portion of the decision in !ri2inal !ase No. 719 reads8 @H R 3OR , pre2ises considered, accused Roberto &ic'a'o is hereb' found /;I&T: be'ond reasonable doubt of the cri2e of Ho2icide under +rticle )#1 of the Revised Penal !ode. +ppl'in, the provisions of the Indeter2inate Sentence &a" and there bein, no a,,ravatin, circu2stances, he is hereb' sentenced to suffer the penalt' of 7 'ears of prision 2a'or as 2ini2u2 to %$ 'ears of reclusion temporal 2ediu2 as 2aDi2u2. 3urther, accused is hereb' ordered to pa' the victi2Cs heirs the a2ount of P$*,***.** as civil inde2nit' for the death of Rufino /ua'. ?Per prevailin, =urisprudence, death inde2nit' is fiDed in the su2 of P$*,***.**. This >ind of civil inde2nit' is separate and distinct fro2 other for2s of inde2nit' for da2a,es and is auto2aticall' a"arded "ithout need of further proof other than the fact of death and that the accused is responsible therefore.? 4People v. Aulius <ino>, /.R. No. %*#()1, Nove2ber %-, )**%B !ase Di,est of Supre2e !ourt DecisionsB vol. $-, No. )5. &i>e"ise, accused is ordered to pa' the victi2Cs heirs another P$*,***.** as 2oral da2a,es. ?This a"ard is 2andator' and does not re9uire proof other than the death of the victi2.? 4People v. Mariano Pascua, Ar., /.R. No. %-*1(-, Nove2ber )0, )**%B !ase Di,est of Supre2e !ourt DecisionsB vol. $-, No. )5. 6ut the !ourt cannot a"ard actual da2a,es as testified to b' the victi2Cs father, Aose /ua', in the a2ount ofP%),***.** since the sa2e "ere not covered b' receipts. The sa2e ,oes true "ith the

alle,ed annual inco2e of the deceased in the a2ount of P-*,***.**. ?@ell.entrenched is the doctrine that actual, co2pensator' and conse9uential da2a,es 2ust be proved, and cannot be presu2ed.? 4Ibid.5.)$ Petitioner appealed to the !ourt of +ppeals. On ( Ma' )**$, the appellate court pro2ul,ated its Decision affir2in, "ith 2odifications the RT! decision. In addition to the civil inde2nit' and 2oral da2a,es a"arded b' the RT!, the appellate court also ordered petitioner to pa' for the loss of earnin, capacit' of Rufino in the a2ount ofP$7*,*$*.** and te2perate da2a,es in the a2ount of P)$,***.**. Thus8 @H R 3OR , in vie" of the fore,oin,, the decision of the Re,ional Trial !ourt, 6ranch %# of &a,a"e, Ifu,ao in !ri2inal !ases Nos. 7%1 and 7)* is hereb' +33IRM D "ith MODI3I!+TION as to the a"ard of da2a,es, in that accused.appellant is also ordered to pa' the victi2Cs heirs the follo"in,8 4a5 the a2ount of P)$,***.** as te2perate da2a,esB and 4b5 the a2ount of P$7*,*$*.** for lost earnin,s. )( Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration "hich the appellate court denied. Hence, petitioner elevated the instant case before us on the follo"in, ,rounds8 I. TH IN3ORM+TION 3I& D IS NOT S;33I!I NT +S IT DID NOT SP !I3I!+&&: !H+R/ D P TITION R 3OR TH !RIM O3 ?HOMI!ID ? D 3IN D +ND P N+&IE D ;ND R +RTI!& )#1 O3 TH R VIS D P N+& !OD B H N! , P TITION R !O;&D NOT 6 V+&ID&: !ONVI!T D 3OR S+ID !RIM . II. /R+NTIN/ TH+T TH IN3ORM+TION IS S;33I!I NT, P TITION R IS NTIT& D TO TH MITI/+TIN/ !IR!;MST+N! S O3 S;33I!I NT PROVO!+TION +ND INTOFI!+TION.)0 +nent the first issue, petitioner points out that the Infor2ation does not specificall' 2ention the la" "hich he alle,edl' violated and for "hich he "as char,ed. +lthou,h the infor2ation accuses hi2 of the cri2e of ho2icide, it does not cate,oricall' state that he is bein, char,ed "ith ho2icide, as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code +ccordin, to hi2, the infor2ation should have been 2ore eDplicit b' statin, that he is bein, indicted for ho2icide as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code . He ar,ues that the specification in the infor2ation of the la" violated is necessar' to enable hi2 to ade9uatel' prepare for his defense, and that to convict hi2 under such defective infor2ation "ould violate his constitutional and statutor' ri,ht to be infor2ed of the nature and cause of the accusation a,ainst hi2. )7 Section (, Rule %%* of the Revised Rules of !ri2inal Procedure provides that an infor2ation is sufficient if it states the na2e of the accusedB the desi,nation of the offense ,iven b' the statuteB the acts or o2issions co2plained of as constitutin, the offenseB the na2e of the offended part'B the approDi2ate date of the co22ission of the offenseB and the place "here the offense "as co22itted.

@ith particular reference to the desi,nation of the offense, Section 7, Rule %%* of the Revised Rules of !ri2inal Procedure 2erel' directs that the infor2ation 2ust state the desi,nation of the offense ,iven b' the statute, aver the acts or o2issions constitutin, the offense, and specif' its 9ualif'in, and a,,ravatin, circu2stances. The infor2ation in the instant case contains the fore,oin, re9uired state2ents. The infor2ation 2entions the na2e of petitioner as the accused, the na2e of Rufino as the offended part', the date and place of the co22ission of the cri2e, and desi,nates the cri2e co22itted b' petitioner as ho2icide. It also alle,es the act of petitioner constitutin, ho2icide "hich is the unla"ful stabbin, of Rufino "ith the use of a bladed "eapon. )1 The fact that the infor2ation does not specificall' 2ention +rticle )#1 of the Revised Penal !ode as the la" "hich defines and penaliGes ho2icide, does not 2a>e it defective. There is nothin, in the afore.9uoted Rules "hich specificall' re9uires that the infor2ation 2ust state the particular la" under "hich the accused is char,ed in order for it to be considered sufficient and valid. @hat the Rules 2erel' re9uire, a2on, other thin,s, is that the infor2ation 2ust desi,nate the offense char,ed and aver the acts constitutin, it, "hich in this case, "ere obviousl' done. People v !atchalian-* cate,oricall' stated that there is no la" "hich re9uires that in order that an accused 2a' be convicted, the specific provision "hich penaliGes the act char,ed be 2entioned in the infor2ation. 6esides, it should be stressed that the character of the cri2e is deter2ined neither b' the caption or prea2ble of the infor2ation nor b' the specification of the provision of la" alle,ed to have been violated, the' bein, conclusions of la", but b' the recital of the ulti2ate facts and circu2stances in the infor2ation.-% The sufficienc' of an infor2ation is not ne,ated b' an inco2plete or defective desi,nation of the cri2e in the caption or other parts of the infor2ation but b' the narration of facts and circu2stances "hich ade9uatel' depicts a cri2e and sufficientl' apprises the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation a,ainst hi2. -) +lthou,h the infor2ation herein does not specificall' 2ention +rticle )#1 of the Revised Penal !ode as the la" "hich defines and penaliGes ho2icide, it, nonetheless, narrates that petitioner stabbed Rufino "ith a bladed "eapon durin, the incident "hich caused the latterCs death. The fore,oin, alle,ation un2ista>abl' refers to ho2icide under +rticle )#1 of the Revised Penal !ode "hich is the unla"ful >illin, of an' person "ithout an' attendant circu2stance that "ill 9ualif' it as 2urder, parricide or infanticide. +propos the second issue, petitioner alle,es that Rufino started the scuffle b' punchin, +ron on the left chee>B that b' such act, Rufino had ,iven hi2 sufficient provocationB and that it "as the pitiful si,ht of +ron l'in, on the ,round and bein, beaten b' Rufino and Aeffre' "hich caused hi2 to stab Rufino.-- Petitioner further clai2s that he "as intoDicated durin, the incidentB that this fact "as affir2ed b' Officers Dan,la' and 6a,uilat in their court testi2oniesB that his intoDication "as not subse9uent to an' plan to co22it a felon' because the encounter bet"een hi2 and Rufino "as 2erel' accidental and there "as no previous a,ree2ent to har2 RufinoB that prior to the incident, he 2et old friends and had a drin> "ith the2B that such is a 2ere custo2 or practice a2on, 3ilipinosB and that his intoDication is not habitual.-# ;nder para,raph #, +rticle %- of the Revised Penal !ode, a cri2inal liabilit' 2a' be 2iti,ated if there "as sufficient provocation on the part of the offended part' "hich i22ediatel' preceded the act co2plained of. To avail oneself of this 2iti,atin, circu2stance, it 2ust be dul' proven that the alle,ed provocation ori,inated fro2 the offended part'. -$

The records do not sufficientl' establish "ho bet"een Rufino and +ron started the bra"l "hich resulted in the stabbin, of Rufino b' petitioner. @hat is evident is that Rufino and +ron suddenl' and uneDpectedl' ,rappled durin, the incident. -( +s aptl' observed b' the RT!8 3ro2 the facts of the case earlier discussed, the %&'h( )*(+**, R-%&,o G-a. a,/ ro, L&c.a.o +a0 0o 0-//*,. In his defense, +ron &ic'a'o in his direct eDa2ination testified thou,h self.servin,, that it "as victi2 Rufino /ua' "ho punched hi2 first and so he fou,ht bac>. Nevertheless, this clai2 of unla"ful a,,ression is belied durin, his cross.eDa2ination8 H. :ou clai2, Mr.@itness, that on 3ebruar' %(, %11), 'ou did not >no" the late Rufino /ua'I +. :es, Sir. H. :ou therefore cannot i2a,ine "h' he should assault 'ou since 'ou did not >no" each otherI +. None. H. :ou never had an' 2isunderstandin, or altercation prior to 3ebruar' %(, %11)I +. None. H. +nd all of a sudden, in the afternoon of 3ebruar' %(, %11) 'ou fou,ht each other and 'ou bein, bi,,er than Rufino /ua', 'ou are on top of hi2, is that ri,htI +. :es, sir. H. +nd 'ou delivered several blo"s "hen 'ou "ere on top of hi2I +. No because the' "ere alread' 2an' and the' held 2e. H. Ho" 2an' blo"s did 'ou deliver "hen 'ou "ere on top of hi2 before the others ca2eI +. I do not >no" ho" 2an'. H. @as it 2ore than tenI +. No. H. @as it 2ore than fifteenI +. I do not >no". H. @h' do 'ou not >no", Mr. @itness, "ere 'ou drun> at that ti2eI +. No, I "as not. 4TSN, pp. 7).7-, !ri2. !ase No. 7)*5. /rantin, ar,uendo that there "as unla"ful a,,ression on the part of the victi2, it is obvious that i22ediatel' he beca2e the underdo,, literall' even. He "as easil' overpo"ered b' the bi,,er and

sober +ron &ic'a'o, "ho unfortunatel', does not >no" ho" to count. @ith this develop2ent, the situation chan,ed. The a,,ressor beca2e the attac>ed and the attac>ed, the a,,ressor. B-( *1*, %ro2 (h* (*0(&2o,&*0 o% )o(h (h* 3ro0*c-(&o, a,/ (h* /*%*,0* +&(,*00*0, (h* %or2*r 43ro0*c-(&o,5 3r*1a&6*/ &, co,1&,c&,' (h&0 Co-r( (ha( -,6a+%-6 a''r*00&o, +a0 ,o( 0(ar(*/ ). a,. o% (h* 3ro(a'o,&0(0 )-( (ha( a 0-//*, %&'h( +a0 0(ar(*/ ). R-%&,o G-a. a,/ acc-0*/ ro, L&c.a.o. Th&0 &0 1*r&%&a)6* %ro2 (h* (*0(&2o,. o% (h* %o-r(h 3ro0*c-(&o, +&(,*00, 7*%%r*. Ma6&,'a,. Defense on the other hand, tried to sho" that it "as the victi2 "ho started the unla"ful a,,ression throu,h "itnesses Daniel !a'on, and accused +ron &ic'a'o. The' failed 2iserabl', ho"ever, to sho" this. Daniel !a'on,, in his direct eDa2ination narrated that it "as not onl' Rufino /ua' "ho started the trouble but rather he and his t"o co2panions Aoel Du2an,en, and Aeffre' Malin,an too> hold of +ron &ic'a'o and started punchin, hi2. The latter "itness, as sho"n earlier, sho"ed his bias b' inculpatin, the deceased onl' to contradict hi2self that the fi,ht suddenl' started "hen he and the deceased ,rappled. -0 The rule is that the findin,s of the trial court, its calibration of the testi2onies of the "itnesses and its assess2ent of the probative "ei,ht thereof, as "ell as its conclusions anchored on said findin,s are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is 2ore true if such findin,s "ere affir2ed b' the appellate court. @hen the trial courtCs findin,s have been affir2ed b' the appellate court, said findin,s are ,enerall' bindin, upon this !ourt.-7 Since it "as not convincin,l' sho"n that the alle,ed provocation ori,inated fro2 Rufino, the 2iti,atin, circu2stance of sufficient provocation should not be appreciated in favor of petitioner. @e have held that "here there is no evidence as to ho" the 9uarrel arose, the accused is not entitled to the 2iti,atin, circu2stance of sufficient provocation. -1 3or intoDication to be considered as a 2iti,atin, circu2stance, it 2ust be sho"n that the intoDication i2paired the "illpo"er of the accused and that he did not >no" "hat he "as doin, or could not co2prehend the "ron,fulness of his acts.#* The person pleadin, intoDication 2ust prove that he too> such 9uantit' of alcoholic bevera,e, prior to the co22ission of the cri2e, as "ould blur his reason. #% In the case at bar, there is no plausible evidence sho"in, that the 9uantit' of li9uor ta>en b' petitioner "as of such 9uantit' as to affect his 2ental faculties. On the contrar', the fact that petitioner could recall the details that transpired durin, and after his drin>in, session "ith friends is the best proof that he >ne" "hat he "as doin, durin, the incident. His vivid narration that he had a confrontation "ith Rufino, Aeffre' and Aoel durin, the drin>in, sessionB that Daniel approached and told hi2 that +ron "as bein, 2auledB that he i22ediatel' "ent to the scene and sa" +ron bein, beaten b' Rufino and Aeffre'B that he pushed Aeffre' a"a' fro2 +ronB that he "as alle,edl' beaten b' the co2panions of Aeffre'B and that he fou,ht bac> but "as alle,edl' overpo"ered ... all point to the conclusion that petitioner had co2plete control of his 2ind durin, the incident. #) Petitioner cannot avail hi2self of the 2iti,atin, circu2stance of intoDication 2erel' on the testi2onies of the prosecution "itnesses that he "as drun> durin, the incident. #- Such testi2onies do not "arrant a conclusion that the de,ree of petitionerCs intoDication had affected his faculties.## There 2ust be convincin, proof of the nature and effect of his intoDication "hich petitioner failed to adduce in the present case.#$ @e no" ,o to the propriet' of the sentence i2posed on petitioner and the da2a,es a"arded to the heirs of Rufino.

Ho2icide is punishable b' reclusion temporal #( There bein, no 2iti,atin, or a,,ravatin, circu2stance proven in the case at bar, the penalt' should be applied in its 2ediu2 period of %# 'ears, 7 2onths and % da' to %0 'ears and # 2onths. #0 +ppl'in, the Indeter2inate Sentence &a", the 2aDi2u2 penalt' "ill be selected fro2 the above ran,e, "ith the 2ini2u2 penalt' bein, selected fro2 the ran,e of the penalt' one de,ree lo"er than reclusion temporal, "hich is prision mayor 4siD 'ears and one da' to %) 'ears5. @e found the indeter2inate sentence of ei,ht 'ears of prision mayor as 2ini2u2, to %$ 'ears of reclusion temporal as 2aDi2u2, i2posed b' the RT!, and affir2ed b' the !ourt of +ppeals, sufficient. The !ourt of +ppeals correctl' a"arded civil inde2nit' in the a2ount of P$*,***.** and 2oral da2a,es a2ountin, to P$*,***.** in line "ith prevailin, =urisprudence.#7 +s to actual da2a,es, Aose testified that his fa2il' incurred eDpenses for the hospitaliGation and funeral of Rufino.#1 Ho"ever, since no docu2entar' evidence "as proffered to support this clai2, it cannot be a"arded.$*Nonetheless, the a"ard of P)$,***.** in te2perate da2a,es in ho2icide or 2urder cases is proper "hen no evidence of the said eDpenses is presented in the trial court.$% ;nder +rticle )))# of the !ivil !ode, $) te2perate da2a,es 2a' be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victi2 suffered pecuniar' loss althou,h the eDact a2ount "as not proved.$- Thus, the a"ard of te2perate da2a,es in the a2ount of P)$,***.** b' the !ourt of +ppeals is in order. @e also a,ree "ith the !ourt of +ppeals that the heirs of Rufino should be inde2nified for loss of earnin, capacit' pursuant to +rticle ))*( of the Ne" !ivil !ode $# in the a2ount of P$7*,*$*.**. In accordance "ith current =urisprudence,$$ the for2ula for the inde2nification for loss of earnin, capacit' is8 Net arnin, !apacit' J &ife Dpectanc' D /ross +nnual Inco2e 4/+I5 K &ivin, Dpenses J )L-47* K a,e of deceased5 D 4/+I K $*M of /+I5 /enerall', docu2entar' evidence is necessar' for the purpose of provin, the victi2Cs annual inco2e. +s an eDception, testi2onial evidence suffices if the victi2 "as either8 4%5 self.e2plo'ed, earnin, less than the 2ini2u2 "a,e under current labor la"s, and =udicial notice 2a' be ta>en of the fact that in the victi2Cs line of "or>, no docu2entar' evidence is availableB or 4)5 e2plo'ed as a dail'."a,e "or>er earnin, less than the 2ini2u2 "a,e under current labor la"s. $( Rufino falls under these eDceptions. Aose testified that Rufino "as earnin, an avera,e annual ,ross inco2e ofP-*,***.** fro2 ,ardenin, and cultivatin, ricefields. $0 Rufino "as )) 'ears old at the ti2e of his death.$7 @e have held that in the absence of proof as re,ards the victi2Cs livin, eDpenses, his net inco2e is dee2ed to be $* percent of his ,ross inco2e.$1 +ppl'in, the above.stated for2ula, the inde2nit' for the loss of earnin, capacit' of Rufino is P$7*,*$*.**, co2puted as follo"s8 Net earnin, capacit' J )L- 4$75 D 4-*,***.** K P%$,***.**5 J -7.(0 D P%$,***.** J P$7*,*$*.**

8"ERE!ORE, the petition is hereb' 9ENIE9. The Decision dated ( Ma' )**$ and Resolution dated %) +u,ust )**$ of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+./.R. !R No. )0-$1 is hereb' !!IRME9 in toto. No costs. SO OR9ERE9.