People vs. Macalindong
People vs. Macalindong
People vs. Macalindong
GESMUNDO, CJ,
Chairperson,
CAGUIOA,
-versus- LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, M., * and
LOPEZ, J., JJ.
Promulgated:
LEONARDO
MACALINDONG y
AND ALLON, OCT 1 3 2021
Accused-Appellant.
x--------------------------------------------------------d------x
DECISION
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This appeal assails the Decision I dated April 4, 2019 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09196 entitled People of the Philippines v.
Leonardo Macalindong y Andallon which affirmed appellant's conviction for
murder, thus:
* On official leave.
1 Penned by Assodak Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Henri Jean Paul B. lnting (now a member of the Court), all members
of the Special Second Division, rollo, pp. 3-18.
If
Decision 2 G.R. No. 248202
SO ORDERED. 2
Antecedents
The Charge
That on or about the 10th day ofFebrnary 2007, at around [sic] 8:00
o'clock in the evening, at Sitio Riverside, Barangay Pakyas, Municipality
of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
treachery and evident premeditation and with a decided purpose to kill and
while armed with a bladed instrnment, attack, assault[,] and stab one
JO VELIA MALINAO y PANOT, his live-in partner while the latter was
unaware, unarmed[,] and defenseless, inflicting upon the latter multiple stab
wounds at the different parts of the body causing her instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LA W. 3
The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) - Branch 40,
Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. On arraignment, appellant pleaded not
guilty. 4 Trial ensued.
2
Id. at 16-17.
3
CA rollo, p. 53.
'Id. at 54.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 248202
Seven (7)-year old Lyn Joy Macalindong (Lyn Joy) testified that in the
evening of February 10, 2007, she heard her father, herein appellant, and her
mother, Jovelia, quarreling inside their home in Barangay Pakyas, Victoria,
Oriental Mindoro. At that time, her brother Jonard was sound asleep. She cried
when she saw appellant stab Jovelia. She approached J ovelia but the latter was
already dead. Appellant then went out of the house. 5
On cross, she stated that she saw appellant stab Jovelia many times. She
later heard her grandmother Nanay Nina saying that Jovelia was stabbed
twenty-two (22) times. 7
5
Id.
6
Id
7 Id.
'Id. at 54-55.
9
Id. at 56.
w Id
II Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 248202
He submitted in evidence the Initial Report dated March 10, 2008 from
the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) and a Medical Certificate
dated November 9, 2007 issued by Dr. Florecita Lindo (Dr. Lindo), both
certifying that he was suffering from schizophrenia. 13
By Decision 14 dated December 10, 2015, the trial court found appellant
guilty of the murder of Jovelia. It gave credence to Lyn Joy's positive
identification of appellant as the person who stabbed Jovelia multiple times.
Treachery attended the killing because appellant suddenly attacked Jovelia
who was unaware of the impending attack and was utterly defenseless. The
trial court, however, did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation for lack of evidence. Thus:
so ORDERED. 15
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
12
/d. at 57.
13 Jd.
14 Penned by Judge Romas C. Leynes, id. at 53-60.
15 Id. at 59-60.
If
Decision 5 G.R. No. 248202
with schizophrenia, and referred him to the National Center for Mental Health
(NCMH) whose initial finding confirmed his schizophrenia. 16
Issues
Ruling
Appellant's defense of
insanity must fail
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that insanity can
exempt one from criminal liability, thus:
16 Id. at 32-51.
17
Id. at 74-82.
18
Supra note 1.
19
Rollo, pp. 60-6 I.
20 Id. at 34-36.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 248202
xxxx
Appellant is guilty of
homicide only
Seven (7)-year old Lyn Joy positively testified that it was her father,
herein appellant, who stabbed her mother Jovelia to death with a knife on
February 10, 2007, thus:
PROS. DOLOR:
COURT:
Q. Did you see your father actually killed [sic] your mother?
A. Yes, [y]our Honor.
Q. What kind of instrument did your father use in killing your mother?
A. A knife, [y]our Honor.
Q. And that Joel is Leonardo Macalindong who is the accused in this case?
A. Yes, [y]our Honor.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 248202
Q. Will you please stand up and point to the accused where is be now?
INTERPRETER:
COURT:
Proceed now.
PROS. DOLOR:
Q. How far were you from your mother when she was stabbed by your father?
A. I was on a cemented part of the house, sir.
COURT:
Q. Do you know how many times did (sic) your father stab (sic) your mother
with a knife?
A. Yes, [y]our Honor.
Q. And did you hear what your father was saying before he stabbed your mother?
A. Yes, [y]our Honor.
Q. Now, after your father stabbed your mother, what did you do?
A. I just looked at them, [y]our Honor.
Q. Did you go to your mother after she was already stabbed to death?
A. Yes, [y]our Honor.
Q. And you were able to talk to your mother at the time that you approached
her or she was already dead?
A. She was already dead, [y]our Honor.
PROS. DOLOR:
COURT:
I
Decision 9 G.R. No. 248202
Lyn Joy narrated that she was with appellant and Jovelia in a room
inside their house. Appellant and Jovelia were quarreling when appellant
suddenly stabbed Jovelia with a knife twenty-two (22) times. After stabbing
J ovelia, appellant just left the house.
xxxx
I/
Decision 10 G.R. No. 248202
The elements of murder are: (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 28 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is
not parricide or infanticide. 29
Here, based on Lyn Joy's testimony, while appellant and Jovelia were
fighting, appellant got caught in the heat of the moment, and suddenly
attacked Jovelia with a knife and stabbed her multiple times. Everything
28 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 temporal 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 defe.nse 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 ofa vessel, derailment or assault
upon a street car 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, destnictive 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.
29 People v. Maron, G.R. No. 232339, November 20, 2019.
3
°Cirera v. People, 739 Phil. 25, 45 (2014).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 248202
Here, Lyn Joy testified that while appellant and Jovelia were fighting,
appellant suddenly grabbed a knife which he used to stab Jovelia several times
in different parts of her body. Even though appellant is an adult male who was
armed with a knife, he cannot be automatically said to have abused his
superior strength. In People v. Mirafla, 32 the difference in age and sex of the
victim (73-year-old female) and the accused (male in early 20s) was
considered insufficient to conclude the presence of abuse of superior strength.
Further, the fact that an assailant was armed with a knife does not ipso facto
indicate abuse of superior strength. 33 To repeat, appellant acted impulsively
and on a spur of the moment, not with logic, cunning, deliberateness, or
strategy. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength
cannot be appreciated in this case.
Art. 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246, shall kill another, without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
The elements of homicide are: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused
killed him without any justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed; and ( d) the killing was not attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide. 34
31 People v. Evasco, G.R. No. 213415, September 26, 2018, 881 SCRA 79, 91.
32
831 Phil. 215,226 (2018).
33 People v. Beduya, 641 Phil."399, 411 (2010).
34 Wacoyv. People, 761 Phil. 570,578 (2015).
I
Decision 12 G.R. No. 248202
xxxx
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,[127]
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Duel, Intentional Abo1tion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:
1.1 Where the crime was consummated:
a. Civil indemnity -1'50,000.00
b. Moral damages - !'50,000.00
xxxx
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged in the
Information,[128] in addition to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and moral damages, the
amount ofl"S0,000.00 exemplary damages for consummated; l"30,000.00 for frustrated; and f'20,000.00
for attempted, shall be awarded.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 248202
Lastly, the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that "[pjursuant to the
pronouncement in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, appellant is further ORDERED
to pay legal interest on all awarded damages at 6% per annum from the filing
ofthe Information on 12 February 2007 until the finality ofthis Decision, and
another 6% per annum from such finality until full payment."
xxxx
In fine, the monetary awards here shall earn six percent (6%) legal
interest per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
39 Id. at 853-854.
VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is
presented in court, the amount ofl.'50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. . _
To reiterate, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the minimum amount for awards of c1v1l
indemnity is !'3,000.00, but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum amount cannot be
chanoed
b ,
increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased when
the present circumstance warrants it.
40 716 Phil. 267, 278-279 (2013).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 248202
All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) legal interest per
annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
J;v.f ~RO-.TAVIER
Associate Justice
Decision 15 G.R. No. 248202
WE CONCUR:
ALE,,A.f-\,;t")l'V".1'"-K G. GESMUNDO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
. GESMUNDO
..