People v. Dela Cruz
People v. Dela Cruz
People v. Dela Cruz
DECISION
VITUG, J : p
The facts relied upon by the trial court in its judgment were narrated
by the Office of the Solicitor General in the People's brief.
"The victim Daniel Macapagal, a married man, had been a live-in
partner of prosecution witness Ma. Luz Perla San Antonio for about two
to three years before San Antonio took appellant Roberto dela Cruz,
widower, as lover and live-in partner. At the time of the incident on May
27, 1996, appellant and San Antonio were living in a house being
rented by San Antonio at 094 Valino District, Magsaysay Norte,
Cabanatuan City (pp. 2-3, TSN, July 6, 1996).
"At around 6:00 o'clock in the evening on May 27, 1996, San
Antonio and appellant were resting in their bedroom when they heard a
car stop in front of their house and later knocks on their door. San
Antonio opened the front door and she was confronted by Macapagal
who made his way inside the house holding a gun in his hand, despite
San Antonio's refusal to let him in. He seemed to be looking for
something or somebody as Macapagal walked passed San Antonio and
inspected the two opened bedrooms of the house. He then went to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
closed bedroom where appellant was and banged at the door with his
gun while yelling 'Come out. Come out' (p. 4, Ibid.). Appellant then
opened the door but he was greeted by Macapagal's gun which was
pointed at him. Appellant immediately closed the door while Macapagal
continued banging at it. When appellant again opened the door
moments later, he was himself armed with a .38 caliber revolver. The
two at that instant immediately grappled for each other's firearm. A
few moments later shots were heard. Macapagal fell dead on the floor.
"Appellant told San Antonio to call the police on the phone. After
a few minutes police officers arrived at the scene. They saw the dead
body of Macapagal slumped on the floor holding a gun. San Antonio
met them on the door and appellant was by then sitting. He stood up to
pick his .38 caliber revolver which he surrendered to SPO3 Felix Castro,
Jr. Appellant told the police that he shot Macapagal in self-defense and
went with them to the police station.
"It was later found by the police that the firearm used by
Macapagal was a 9mm caliber pistol. It had one magazine loaded with
twelve (12) live ammunition but an examination of the gun showed
that its chamber was not loaded.
"4. Lacerated wound linear 1/2 inch in length (L) cheek area"
11 —
"Q Did you ask Candy why she was in possession of that gun?
"A Once I opened her drawer and I asked her who owns that gun,
sir.
"Q And what was her reply as to who owns that gun?
"A According to her that firearm was used as payment by a group
of persons who were her customers at the Videoke, sir.
"Q And what else did Candy tell you about that firearm, if you
know?
"A She also told me that we can use that gun for protection, sir." 14
The trial court has erred, however, in imposing the death penalty on
accused-appellant. Presidential Decree No. 1866 is already amended by
Republic Act No. 8294. Section 1, third paragraph, of the amendatory law
provides that "if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance." The provision is clear, and there would be no
need to still belabor the matter. 15
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be
considered in favor of accused-appellant. Immediately following the shooting
incident, he instructed his live-in partner to call the police and report the
incident. He waited for the arrival of the authorities and readily
acknowledged before them his having been responsible for the shooting of
the victim. 16
The aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm being
effectively offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, 17
the penalty prescribed by law for the offense should be imposed in its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
medium period. 18 Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the
penalty of reclusion temporal in the crime of homicide, the range of which is
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty shall be taken
from the medium period of reclusion temporal, i.e ., from fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in
degree, which is prision mayor, anywhere in its range of from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
The amount of P2,865,600.00 awarded by the trial court as damages
for loss of earning capacity should be modified. The testimony of the victim's
surviving spouse, Marina Villa Juan Macapagal, on the earning capacity of
her husband Daniel Macapagal sufficiently established the basis for making
possible such an award. 19 The deceased was 44 years old at the time of his
death in 1996, with a gross monthly income of P9,950.00. 20 In accordance
with the American Expectancy Table of Mortality adopted in several cases 21
decided by this Court, the loss of his earning capacity should be calculated
thusly:
Gross less living
Net earning capacity (x) = life annual - expenses
expectancy x
income (50% of gross
annual
income)
or
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Yñares-Santiago , and De Leon,
Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo , p. 11.
2. Rollo , pp. 125-127.
3. Rollo , p. 38.
4. People vs. Galapin, 293 SCRA 474.
5. People vs. Baniel , 275 SCRA 472.
6. See People vs. Demonteverde , 290 SCRA 175.
7. Art. 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code.
8. People vs. De Gracia, 264 SCRA 200.
9. Unlawful aggression is, of course, primordial; it must be real, i.e., an actual,
sudden, and unexpected attack or an imminent danger thereof, and not just
a threatening or intimidating attitude. (People vs. Maalat, 275 SCRA 206.)
10. People vs. Babor, 262 SCRA 359.
11. Rollo , p. 34.
12. People vs. Maceda, 197 SCRA 499.
13. People vs. Bergante , 286 SCRA 629.
14. TSN, 17 October 1969, p. 20.
15. People vs. Molina, 292 SCRA 742.
16. The elements of voluntary surrender are that (1) the offender has not been
actually arrested; (2) he surrender himself to a person in authority or an
agent of a person in authority; and (3) his surrender was voluntary (People
vs. Medina, 286 SCRA 44).
17. Presidential Decree No. 1866 not having provided otherwise.
18. Article 64, Revised Penal Code.
19. People vs. Verde, 302 SCRA 690; Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa ,
179 SCRA 384.
20. TSN of Marina Macapagal, 15 August 1996, p. 10.
21. People vs. Verde, 302 SCRA 690; Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 300 SCRA 20; Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 298
SCRA 495; Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 534;
Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 31 SCRA 511.