Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
MANILA

SIXTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

LIBREA-LEAGOGO J., CHAIRPERSON.,

- versus - GAERLAN, &
SINGH, JJ.

Promulgated: November 21, 2018

JOEL ABADINAS Y SURA,
Accused-Appellant.

DECISION
SINGH, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 18 January 2013 of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 109 of Pasay City in Criminal Case No. R-
PSY-08-05827-CR, convicting the accused-appellant Joel Abadinas y Sura
of the crime of Murder.

The Facts

On 27 May 2003, a criminal case for Murder was filed against

accused-appellant Joel Abadinas y Sura (Joel).

The Information2 reads:

“That on or about the 22nd day of May 2008, in

Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with malice, aforethought or evident

1 Rollo, Decision dated 18 January 2013, pp. 60-75; Record, pp. 365-381.
2 Record, p. 1.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 2 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

premeditation and with deliberate intent to kill, did then

and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously hack
repeatedly with a samurai or Japanese sword Shiela R.
Caguioa,3 a minor 16 years of age, inflicting upon the
latter mortal wounds which caused her or the victim's
(sic) subsequent and untimely death.

Contrary to law.” (emphasis not ours)

On 20 June 2008, Joel was arraigned and entered a plea of “Not

Guilty.”4 Pre-trial was terminated on 29 July 2008.5 Trial then ensued.

The Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) eyewitness

Zordan Diaz (Zordan); (2) eyewitness Christian Reyes (Christian); (3) the
medico-legal, Dr. Onofre O'Connor (Dr. O'Connor); (4) Joanna Marie
Saygo (Joanna); (4) Vilma Abalos (Vilma); (5) Dr. Voltaire Nulod (Dr.
Nulod), who conducted the autopsy on the victim Shiela R. Caguioa
(Shiela); (6) Barangay Tanod Ireneo Solera, Jr. (Ireneo); (7) Barangay
Tanod Danilo Dizon (Danilo); and, (8) Berna Caguioa (Berna), the mother
of Shiela.

The prosecution established that on 22 May 2008, Shiela and Joanna

went to the house of Paul Zarte (Paul), located at 23 Tripa de Galina,
Stanford Street, Pasay City,6 to look for Zordan because Shiela wanted to
borrow money from Zordan.7 Shiela found Zordan resting on the bed at the
second floor of Paul's house. While Zordan, Shiela and Joanna were talking
about Shiela's upcoming birthday, Joel arrived. Joel then uttered:“Kumpleto
na pala kayo.”8 Shiela then replied to Joel,“Ano na naman yan?”9

Joel and Shiela were formerly sweethearts.10 Joel wanted to talk to

Shiela that time, to reconcile with her. 11 Shiela declined and asked Joel to
give her a month to decide. Shiela then turned to Joanna saying,“let's go
down.”12 But as Joanna and Shiela were about to go down, Joel blocked
Shiela's way.13 Shiela then said to Joanna,“Joanna, huwag mo akong
3 In her Birth Certificate (Record, Exhibit R, p. 165), her name was spelled as “SHIELA,” but in
her Certificate of Death (Record, Exhibit S, p. 166.), her name was spelled as “SHEILA.”
4 Record, Order dated 20 June 2008, p. 22.
5 Id., Pre-Trial Order dated 29 July 2008, pp. 43-45.
6 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (hereafter, “TSN”), Witness: Zordan Diaz, 14 August 2008, p. 5.
7 Id., at 5; Witness: Joanna Marie Saygo, 28 November 2008, p. 6
8 Id., Witness: Joanna Marie Saygo, 28 November 2008, p. 8.
9 Id.
10 TSN, Witness: Joel Abadinas, November 9, 2010, pp. 5-6.
11 Id., Witness: Zordan Diaz,14 August 2008, pp. 8-9.
12 Id., Witness: Joanna Marie Saygo, 28 November 2008, pp. 8-9.
13 Id.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 3 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

iwan.” Joel said to Joanna,“Sige na, mag-uusap lang kami.” But despite the
plea of Shiela, Joanna proceeded to go down, and turned to the left.14

Joel and Shiela started arguing with each other. Joel suddenly
strangled Shiela. Seeing this, Zordan stood up and tried to pacify Joel and
Shiela. However, Joel punched Zordan on his left cheek and Zordan fell on
the floor. Joel continued strangling Shiela.15

Zordan again tried to separate Joel and Shiela, but Joel succeeded in
punching him three times until Zordan was“napasiksik sa sulok.”16 When
Zordan stood up, Shiela ran towards the foot of the bed. Joel then grabbed
the samurai that was hanging from the ceiling, and he pulled Shiela's hair.
Shiela pleaded to Joel “Maawa ka sa akin.”17 Joel, however, aimed the
samurai at Shiela.

Zordan hurriedly went downstairs and sought help. Christian and

Edmundo Canabe (Edmundo) responded and they went upstairs.18 Because
the door was closed, Christian peeped through a small opening or “siwang”
on the wall and he saw Joel hacking Shiela.19 Shiela was lying on the bed
while Joel was hacking her body with a samurai. Christian then shouted
“tama na yan.”20 But Joel continued hacking Shiela. Christian instructed
Zordan to report the matter to the barangay.21

Edmundo, on the other hand, called Vilma and instructed her to call
the barangay because Shiela was being hurt by Joel. 22 Vilma also went to
the place of the incident, but Edmundo prevented her from going upstairs
because Joel was armed with a samurai. 23 Vilma pleaded to Joel not to hurt
Shiela. Joel replied to Vilma: “Demonyo na ako baka idamay pa kita.”24

Barangay Tanods Ireneo and Danilo arrived and saw some people
carrying Shiela downstairs. The samurai used by Joel, covered with blood
and“baluktot,” was handed to Ireneo.25 When Zordan arrived back after

14 TSN, Witness: Joanna Marie Saygo, 28 November 2008, p. 9.

15 Id., Witness: Zordan Diaz,14 August 2008, p. 10.
16 Id., at 11.
17 Id., at 12-13
18 Id., at 13-14
19 Id., at 15; TSN, Witness: Christian Reyes, 30 October 2008, p. 8.
20 Id., Witness: Christian Reyes, 30 October 2008, pp. 10-11.
21 Id., Witness: Zordan Diaz,14 August 2008, pp. 16-17.
22 Id., Witness: Vilma Abalos, 24 March 2009, p. 7.
23 Id., at. 9.
24 Id.
25 TSN, Witness: Zordan Diaz,14 August 2008, pp. 17-19; Witness: Ireneo Solero, 11 August 2009,
pp 8-9.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 4 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

going to the barangay, he saw Shiela all bloodied and gasping for her life. 26
Shiela uttered “tulungan nyo ko” and said that it was Joel who did it to her.27

Shiela was then brought to the Pasay City General Hospital at 8:45 in
the evening.28 After 30 minutes, Joel was likewise brought to the hospital
because he slashed his wrist and jumped into the creek after what he had
done to Shiela.29 Shiela was pronounced dead at 9:15 in the evening of the
same date.30

On post mortem examination, the medico-legal, Dr. O'Connor, found

that Shiela suffered (1) a hacking wound penetrating the frontal-parietal left
to pinna on the left; (2) a hacking wound on the occipital area; (3) multiple
hacking wound of multiple fracture of calvarium parietal-occipital; (4) a
lacerated wound at left frontal and midfrontal area and a hematoma or
“pasa” on the frontal area; (5) multiple hacking wounds on the right arm
and on the forearm, bilateral, and also dorsum hand bilateral, on the right
popliteal area, on the right anterior leg area, and the supra scapular area; and
(6) hacking wounds at the right thigh and stab wound at the anterior chest,
and lacerated wound at the right mid scapular ICS. 31 The total number of
wounds received by Shiela was fourteen (14) and one hematoma.

Dr. O'Connor testified that the most fatal wound suffered by Shiela
was the one located at the posterior part of her skull. The wound was deep
as it penetrated Shiela's brain. The other wounds were also fatal because
they caused massive bleeding. There was also a wound near the heart but
Dr. O'Connor was not certain if it penetrated the heart because the stab
wound was along the mid-clavicle of the chest.32 He said that the immediate
cause of Shiela's death was hypovolemic shock or massive blood loss. 33
There were also signs of strangling. The weapon used could possibly be a
long, hard, and sharp instrument.34

The said findings were supported by the autopsy report35 of Dr.

Nulod.36 Dr. Nulod observed that Shiela has been dead or in rigor mortis
for six (6) to eight (8) hours when he performed the autopsy.37 He said that
Shiela sustained four (4) hack wounds, three (3) of which are found in the
26 Id., Witness: Zordan Diaz,14 August 2008, pp. 21-22.
27 Id., at 23-26.
28 TSN, Witness: Zordan Diaz,14 August 2008, p. 27.
29 Id., at 29.
30 Id.
31 TSN, Witness: Dr. Onofre O'Connor, 11 November 2008, p. 8; Record, Exhibit F-4, Certificate of
Post-Mortem Examination, p. 151; Exhibit K, Medico-Legal Report No. M-270-2008, p. 157.
32 Id., at 16; Record, Exhibit F-4, Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination, p. 151.
33 Id., at 17
34 Id., at 9.
35 Record, Exhibit K, Medico-Legal Report No. M-270-2008, p. 157.
36 TSN, Witness: Dr. Voltaire Nulud, 14 July 2009, p. 6.
37 Id., 9
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 5 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

head region and one (1) hack wound in the nape area. Aside from that, there
were four (4) stab wounds found in the upper extremities, particularly at the
middle part of the right arm.38 There were also wounds at the right knee,
middle right leg, and in the right“alakalakan.”39

Shiela also suffered twenty one (21) incised wounds which may have
been caused by a bladed and sharp object. 40 The cause of Shiela's death was
hemorrhage and hemorrhagic shock.41

The Defense Evidence

Joel testified that Shiela was his girlfriend and they have been
sweethearts for one (1) year and ten (10) months. 42 On 22 May 2008, he
saw Joanna come out of Paul's house and asked her where Shiela was.
Joanna did not reply and she immediately left. Joel got suspicious at
Joanna's actions, so he went inside Paul's house.43

Upstairs, Joel opened the door and when he switched on the light, Joel
saw Shiela and Zordan putting on their pants.44 Joel got angry and he and
Zordan struggled or “nagpambuno.”45 Joel said “nagdilim ang paningin
ko”46 as he punched Zordan. Zordan tried to hack him with a samurai and
tried to hit him above the wrist of his left hand. 47 Joel warded off the
hacking by using a wooden chair as a shield.48

Joel hit Zordan's right hand with the wooden chair. The samurai then
fell from Zordan's hand, and Joel was able to pick it up. As Joel was about
to attack Zordan with the samurai, Shiela went between them or “biglang
humarang ang girlfriend ko.”49 Shiela was thus hit by the samurai. After
that, Joel said that he had mixed emotions and he attempted to commit
suicide and jumped from the window of the house. He said he fell into the
creek or “ilog.”50 He then lost consciousness and cannot recall what
happened. He was at the Pasay City General Hospital when he regained
consciousness and there he was arrested by the police.51

38 Id., at 11-12.
39 Id., at 12.
40 Id., at 13.
41 Id., at 14.
42 TSN, Witness: Joel Abadinas, November 9, 2010, pp. 5-6.
43 Id., at 10-11.
44 Id., at 12.
45 Id., at 13-14.
46 Id., at 14.
47 Id., at 15.
48 Id., at 16.
49 Id., at 16.
50 Id., at 17.
51 Id., at 18.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 6 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

The RTC Decision

On 18 January 2013, the RTC issued the appealed Decision, 52

disposing:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, and for the

prosecution to have proven (sic) its case (Murder) beyond
reasonable doubt, sentence is hereby pronounced and
meted against the accused Joel Abadinas y Sura:

1. To serve sentence of Reclusion Perpetua;

2. To pay the heirs of the victim in the amount of
Seventy Five Thousand (Php75,000.00) Pesos as moral
damages;
3. To pay the amount spent by the heirs of the victim
in the amount of:

Php76,000.00 – for funeral expenses;

Php3,000.00 – representing autopsy;
Php10,000.00 – internment;
Php37,000.00 – wake from May 23 to May
28

SO ORDERED.”53 (emphasis not ours)

Hence, this appeal.54

The Issues

Joel assigns the following errors to the RTC:

“I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FATALLY
INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES
OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

52 Supra. at Note 1.
53 Rollo, pp. 74-75; Record, pp. 380-381.
54 Record, p. 387.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 7 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S
DEFENSE THAT THE KILLING WAS BY MERE
ACCIDENT.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S
UTTER FAILURE TO PROVE THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
AS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF CRUELTY, WHICH WAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

DISREGARDING THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.”55

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

Minor inconsistencies in the testimony

of a witness do not detract from his
credibility.

Joel alleges that the RTC erred in giving credence to the testimony of
Zordan.

55 Rollo, pp. 41-42.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 8 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

Zordan testified that he was in a relationship with Shiela for only a

night and his love did not progress because Shiela had problems. However,
during the cross-examination, Zordan revealed that prior to the incident,
Shiela and Zordan were in an “on and off” relationship.

Joel argues that these contradictory statements bolster his claim that,
at the time of the incident, he saw Zordan and Shiela in a compromising
position and, because he was blinded by jealousy, being the boyfriend of
Shiela, he committed the crime.

Additionally, Joel points out that the testimony of Zordan that he

asked for help from Christian was not corroborated by Christian, as the
latter only testified that he went upstairs when he heard some persons
quarreling.

Joel claims that because of the said inconsistencies, the credibility of

Zordan as a witness was eroded and his testimony should have been
discredited by the RTC.

The Court disagrees.

Jurisprudence has established that inconsistencies and discrepancies

referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not
diminish the witness’ credibility. If the cited inconsistency has nothing to do
with the elements of a crime, it does not stand as a ground to reverse a
conviction.56

The testimony of Zordan regarding the timeline of his relationship

with Shiela, though seemingly conflicting, do not negate his credibility as
the same has nothing to do with the elements of the crime of murder. In
fact, the entire testimony of Zordan shed light on the circumstances that led
to the death of Shiela, as he was the one who personally witnessed the
incident.

“Settled is the rule that discrepancies referring only to minor

details and collateral matters, not to the central fact of the crime -- do
not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of
witnesses’ declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically
believable on the whole. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the
testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must
establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime
charged.”57
56 People v. Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 1 June 2011, 650 SCRA 256, 276 citing People v.
Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, 21 May 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 19 further citing People v. Monieva, G.R.
No. 123912, 8 June 2000, 333 SCRA 244, 252 and People v. Ignas, 458 Phil. 965, 988.
57 People v. Buca, G.R. No. 209587, September 23, 2015, citing People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, 5
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 9 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

Besides, it is well settled that the trial court's assessment of the

demeanor and deportment of a witness is given primacy and therefore its
factual findings are held binding on appeal.

“The Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation

of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in
directly observing the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand.
From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to
determine the truthfulness of witnesses. It is established that the
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a
matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their
demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These
are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in
unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting
testimonies. Indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the
voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness's credibility, and
the trial court has the best opportunity to take advantage of the
same.”58

The qualifying circumstances of

evident premeditation and cruelty
must not only be alleged, but also
proven with reasonable certainty by
the prosecution.

With respect to the appreciation of the qualifying circumstances of

evident premeditation and cruelty, Section 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court is instructive:

“Section 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or

omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in
ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language
used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is being charged as
well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the
court to pronounce judgment.” (underscoring supplied)

October 2011.
58 Heirs of Villanueva, et al., v. Heirs of Syquia Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 209132, 5 June 2017.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 10 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

Settled is the rule that a criminal complaint or information should

basically contain the elements of the crime, as well as its qualifying and
ordinary aggravating circumstances, for the court to effectively determine
the proper penalty it should impose.59

In the Information against Joel, the qualifying circumstance of evident

premeditation was specifically alleged. The issue now is whether the
prosecution has proven with moral certainty that evident premeditation
attended the killing of Shiela as to qualify her killing to murder.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“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 reclusion perpetua,
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.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a railroad or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption
of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.” (underscoring
supplied)

To warrant a conviction for the crime of murder, the following

essential elements must be present: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the
accused killed him or her; (3) that 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. 60
59 People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
60 People v. Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 226475, March 13, 2017, citing People v. Lagman, 685 Phil.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 11 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

In this case, the first element is undisputedly present. The death of

Shiela is conceded by the defense.61 It is evidenced by the Certificate of
Death,62 as well as the Medical Report63 and the Medico-Legal Report64
confirmed by Dr. O'Connor and Dr. Nulud.

As for the second element, Joel does not dispute that he is the author
of the crime. In fact, he raised the defense that the killing is justified
because he was blinded by jealousy after catching Zordan and Shiela in a
compromising position. He even claimed that the blows were really
intended for Zordan, but because Shiela was “humarang,” she sustained the
injuries.

The fourth element is conceded: the killing is definitely not parricide

or infanticide, as Shiela was 16 years old at the time of her death and was
not related to Joel.

Going now to the third element of murder, Joel asserts that the
prosecution has not proven with moral certainty that evident premeditation
attended the killing of Shiela. He argues that there was no showing of a
previous plan or decision on his part to commit a crime, and that he clung to
this decision. There was also no evidence to show that Joel was afforded
sufficient lapse of time from the time he made a decision to kill Shiela, up to
the time of the actual killing, to reflect on the consequences of his action.

The Court agrees with Joel.

For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements

must be present: (1) there should be a previous decision by the accused to
commit the crime; (2) there should be overt act/s manifestly indicating that
the accused clung to his determination; and (3) there should be a lapse of
time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution
sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts.

The elements of evident premeditation are absent in this case.

733, 743 (2012).

61 Record, Pre-Trial Order, pp. 43-45.
62 Id., Exhibit S, p. 166.
63 Id., Exhibit F, p. 151.
64 Id., Exhibit K, p. 157.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 12 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

There was simply no proof that Joel previously planned to kill Shiela.
As testified by Zordan himself, Joel just wanted to talk to Shiela to ask for a
reconciliation. When Shiela told him to give her a month to decide, they
had an argument which led to Joel's act of strangling Shiela.

“Fiscal Francisco:

Q: And so, while you were resting and Shiela and Joanna were
telling stories to each other, Joel Abadinas arrived, and what happened
next, Mr. Witness? What did he do, if any?
A: He talked to Shiela Caguioa, ma' am.

Q: And what was the conversation about, Mr. Witness, if you

know?
A: That Joel Abadinas wanted to reconcile with Shiela Caguioa,
ma' am.

Q: And what did Shiela say, if you were able to hear it if any, Mr.
Witness?
A: Shiela says, in turn to Joanna, to give her one month to decide.

Q: What was the reaction of Joel Abadinas when Shiela told him
that, Mr. Witness?
A: They had an argument and Joel Abadinas immediately
strangled the neck of Shiela Caguioa.”65 (underscoring supplied)

On cross-examination, Zordan even stated that Joel told him that he

loved Shiela so much and wanted a reconciliation.

“Q: Now, do you know that... Did you ever come to know that
Shiela Caguioa and Joel Abadinas, the accused in this case, later
became sweethearts?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And they were in that relationship when this happened?

A: No, sir. They were already broke up (sic) when the incident
happened. Joel Abadinas wanted to have a reconciliation.

Q: How did you come to know that they broke up?

A: Joanna (sic) told me. Joanna told me that Shiela Caguioa and
Joel Abadinas has (sic) just broke up on May 16, sir.

65 TSN, Witness: Zordan Diaz, 14 August 2008, pp. 9-10.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 13 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

Q: But not from the mouth of Shiela herself?

A: Also Shiela told me after several days.

Q: It was after May 16 when you and Shiela Caguioa again

became sweethearts for the second time?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And on May 21, just one day before this incident subject of this
case, you again broke up with Shiela?
A: Yes, sir. Because Joel Abadinas was reconciling with Shiela.
Joel told me that he loves Shiela very much.”66 (underscoring
supplied)

These statements belie the assertion that Joel had any plan of killing
Shiela. Clearly, what transpired was Joel's spontaneous reaction due to his
jealousy and anger, perhaps because Shiela declined to reconcile with him
and asked for a month to decide. But, to the Court's mind, it is more likely
that Joel was jealous of Zordan, knowing that he and Shiela had a previous
relationship, and seeing them all together in Paul's house that day, Joel's
jealousy may have been heightened. Joel would not have asked Shiela to
reconcile if he wanted her dead.

Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to
kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident
premeditation cannot be considered.67

There was likewise no overt act which showed that Joel clung to his
determination to kill Shiela. Joel testified that “nagdilim na ang paningin
ko”68 when he was hacking Shiela. Surely, this only proves that his resolve
and judgment were already clouded by his emotion and could not in any way
show that he was capable of calm reflection preceding the fatal act.

In as much as the first and second elements are absent, there is no way
to determine the lapse of time between the determination to kill Shiela and
the actual execution itself.

As for the circumstance of cruelty, Joel argues that the RTC erred in
appreciating cruelty as a qualifying circumstance even if the same was not
specifically alleged in the Information.

66 Id., at 28.
67 People v. Avila, G.R. No. 201584, 15 June 2016.
68 TSN, Witness: Joel Abadinas, 9 November 2010, p. 21.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 14 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

The Court sustains Joel's objection.

In this case, the qualifying circumstance of cruelty was not averred in

the Information. There are no terms or words, plain and concise, which
would indicate that the killing was attended by cruelty.

The findings of the RTC that Shiela was pleading for help and the
wounds inflicted on her showed no mercy on the part of Joel, are not
sufficient to prove cruelty, even assuming them to be true.

“There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in

making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
In other words, for cruelty to be appreciated, it must be shown that
the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to
suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary
physical and moral pain. The crime is aggravated because by
deliberately increasing the suffering of the victim, the offender
denotes sadism and, consequently, a marked degree of malice and
perversity.

The test for determining the presence of cruelty is whether

the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim’s
suffering. Consequently, there must be proof that the victim was
made to agonize before he was killed.”69 (underscoring supplied)

Applying the test, there are no circumstances that would show that
Joel deliberately and sadistically augmented Shiela's suffering for his own
pleasure. There was no proof that Joel delighted in causing unnecessary
pain by hacking Shiela. The fact that Shiela suffered several wounds does
not conclusively demonstrate cruelty. The number of wounds does not per
se give rise to cruelty.70

Time and again, before a qualifying circumstance may be taken into

consideration, it must be proved with equal certainty as that which
establishes the commission of the crime. It is not only the central fact of
killing that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; every qualifying and
aggravating circumstance alleged to have been present and to have attended
such killing, must similarly be shown by the same degree of proof. As with
the finding of guilt of the accused, any doubt to its existence should be
resolved in favor of the accused.71

69 People v. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, 22 August 2002.

70 People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, 10 October 2000.
71 People v. Avila, G.R. No. 201584, 15 June 2016.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 15 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

For failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt any

qualifying circumstance, the crime committed by Joel in killing Shiela was
merely homicide, and not murder.

The mitigating circumstance of

passion and obfuscation cannot be
appreciated.

Joel pleads for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of

passion and obfuscation in as much as he was overcome by jealousy when
he saw Zordan and Shiela in a compromising position. He argues that this
scene blinded him, “nagdilim ang paningin ko,” and sufficiently provoked
him to commit the crime.

The Court finds that passion and obfuscation cannot be appreciated in

this case.

“In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of

passion and obfuscation, the following elements should concur: (1)
there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such
condition of mind; (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was
not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might
recover his normal equanimity.

For a person to be motivated by passion and obfuscation,

there must first exist an unlawful act that would naturally produce
an impulse sufficient to overcome reason and self-control. There is
passional obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or
improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason.”72

Two witnesses, Zordan and Joanna, negated the claim of Joel that
Zordan and Shiela were caught in the act of putting their pants on. They
both testified that Joanna accompanied Shiela to see Zordan for the purpose
of borrowing money from him. Joel also testified that he saw Joanna come
down from the house of Paul where Zordan and Shiela were. It is therefore
impossible for Zordan and Shiela to be in a compromising position with
Joanna also inside the room.

72 People v. Lab-eo, G.R. No. 133438, 16 January 2002.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 16 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

Moreover, Joel's invocation of the sweetheart theory does not hold

water.

In the case of People v. Yaba,73 the Supreme Court held:

“The sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense is an oft-

abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of the court
and sorely tests its patience. For the court to even consider giving
credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling
evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in
support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is
required – such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.”

Even if Joel and Shiela were sweethearts, this fact alone does not
negate the criminal liability of Joel. Joel's jealousy may be too strong as to
cloud his reason or judgment, but certainly this does not justify his act of
killing Shiela. To stress, even assuming as true that Joel found Sheila and
Zordan in the act of putting on their pants, the same is not an “unlawful act”
within the meaning of the rule, as Shiela and Zordan were not even
sweethearts anymore at that time, or even if they were, they were not
married to each other.

The penalty and the award of

damages must be modified.

With the foregoing, the penalty for the crime of Homicide should be
imposed upon Joel.

The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of Homicide is reclusion

temporal, the duration of which is from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years.74 It is a divisible penalty consisting of three periods.

Since there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances,

applying Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, 75 the maximum penalty shall
73 G.R. No. 194946, 3 September 2014.
74 Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
75 Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which the
penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of
three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76
and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether
there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 17 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

be in its medium period. Hence, the maximum term of the penalty that must
be imposed on Joel for Homicide is anywhere from fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months of reclusion temporal.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall

be one (1) degree lower than the imposable penalty which is reclusion
temporal, i.e., prision mayor. Thus, the minimum penalty to be imposed on
Joel is anywhere from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of
prision mayor.

The Court thus modifies the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment to

be imposed on Joel to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, up to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The award of civil damages must be amended in consonance with

People v. Jugueta,76 where the Supreme Court held:

V. “In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the
penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under
Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to conceal the dishonour of the
offender, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Duel,
Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:

1.1 Where the crime was consummated:

a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00

Hence, the Court awards the heirs of Shiela R. Caguioa the amount of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

However, the Court finds the award of P126,000.00 for wake and
burial expenses improper, there being no evidence submitted to prove the
same.
one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the
court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable,
according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a
greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number
and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil
produced by the crime.
76 G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 18 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

“Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only

be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely
on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining
the fact and amount of damages. To justify an award of
actual damages, there must be competent proof of the
actual amount of loss, credence can be given only to
claims which are duly supported by receipts.”77

Nevertheless, as the Court is cognizant of the Supreme Court's rulings

in similar cases where the actual expenses occasioned by the killing of an
individual remained unsubstantiated, temperate damages in the amount of
P50,000.00 are awarded to the heirs of Shiela R. Caguioa.78

Disposition

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 18

January 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109 of Pasay City in
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-08-05827-CR, is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS.

Accused-Appellant JOEL ABADINAS y SURA is found guilty

instead of the crime of Homicide. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, up to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The accused-appellant Joel Abadinas is held liable to pay the heirs of

Shiela R. Caguioa:

1. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto;

2. P50,000.00 as moral damages; and

3. P50,000.00 as temperate damages.

77 Bacolod v. People, G.R. No. 206236, 15 July 2013.

78 People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016; The award of ₱25,000.00 as temperate
damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is
presented in the trial court. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be
recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss although the
exact amount was not proved. In this case, the Court now increases the amount to be awarded as
temperate damages to ₱50,000.00.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08360 Page 19 of 19
DECISION
x------------------------------x

The award of P126,000.00 for wake and burial expenses is deleted.

All the amounts awarded shall earn an interest of 6% per annum from
date of finality of this Decision, until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixth Division