Republic of the Philippines

Manila

SIXTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 45447

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

Members:

GARCIA, R. R.,
Chairperson,
- versus - FIEL-MACARAIG, G. C., and
ONG, J. J. C., JJ.

Promulgated:
JULIO MAALIW CUSTODIO, September 8, 2022
Accused-Appellant.
x--------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

GARCIA, R. R., J.:

Before Us is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated February 18,

2020 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City in Criminal
Case No. 2018-1442 which found accused-appellant Julio Maaliw
Custodio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, defined and
penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE

FOREGOING, this [C]ourt found the accused, Julio M.
Custodio, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of homicide and hereby sentenced him to suffer
an Indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6)

1
Penned by Presiding Judge Agripino R. Bravo, Rollo, pp. 65-89.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 2 of 17
Decision

years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum[,] as

minimum[,] to [twelve] 12 years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal minimum[,] as maximum, and to
pay the heirs of Teodolfo De Chavez, by way of
damages, the following, to wit:

a) Php 75,000.00 as indemnity ex-delicto;

b) Php 50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
c) Php 25,000.00 as temperate damages; and
d) Php 922,944.00 as loss of income with 6%
interest per annum for all the monetarial
awards to begin from the finality of this
decision.

SO ORDERED.2

THE FACTS

In an Information3 dated July 21, 2018 filed before the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City, accused-appellant Julio Maaliw
Custodio was charged with the crime of homicide, committed as
follows:

That on or about the 17th day of March 2018, at

Purok 7, Barangay Sampaloc Bugon, Municipality of
Sariaya, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm,
with intent to kill, did then and there [willfully],
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hit with
said firearm one Teodolfo De Chavez, inflicting
upon the [latter] gunshot wounds on his head which
directly caused his death.

Contrary to law.
[Emphasis not on Us.]

Upon arraignment on October 9, 2018, appellant, assisted by

counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged.4 Trial on
the merits ensued thereafter.

2
Rollo, p. 89.
3
Records, p. 2.
4
Vide: Order dated October 9, 2018, Records, pp. 115-117; Certificate of Arraignment dated
October 9, 2018, Records, p. 118.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 3 of 17
Decision

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely:

eyewitness Romel De Chavez, victim's son Marvin De Chavez and
victim's wife Susan De Chavez.

The version of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:

On March 17, 2018, at around 8:50 in the evening, eyewitness

Romel De Chavez was driving his tricycle coming from the house of
his brother, the victim Teodolfo De Chavez, in Purok 7, Brgy.
Sampaloc Bugon, Sariaya, Quezon. He was on his way home and
while traversing the barangay road of Sampaloc Bugon in Purok 4,
Romel noticed a man standing beside the road who was, at that time,
holding a short gun. The said man, whose back was turned toward
Romel, suddenly fired his gun twice and shot another man on the
head. Romel did not recognize the victim to be his brother because
the place was not well-lit and the man who fired the gun was covering
Romel's view of the victim. The latter immediately fell to the ground.
The headlight of Romel's tricycle caught the man's attention and
when he turned around, Romel identified the said man as herein
appellant. Romel knew appellant because the latter was a barangay
kagawad of Sampaloc Bugon and Romel had likewise met him on
several occasions.

Appellant, who was still holding his gun, then shouted at

Romel, "Hoy ikaw! Ano! Gusto mo rin bang patayin kita?!" Fearing
for his life, Romel instantly maneuvered his tricycle around and
returned to his brother's house. Upon arriving thereat, he saw his
brother's wife Susan De Chavez and told the latter about what he
witnessed. Susan advised Romel to just stay during the night. 5

Meanwhile, at around 9:00 p.m., the victim's son Marvin De

Chavez went outside their house to fetch his cousin living in Purok 3
of Sampaloc Bugon. He passed by the house of appellant and noticed
the latter's tricycle parked outside his house. What caught Marvin's
attention was the blood stains inside the tricycle. Afraid of what he
saw, he ran towards his cousin's house. When he went home,
appellant's tricycle was already gone.6

At around 12:00 midnight, Romel was awakened by his nephew

Marvin because some police officers and barangay officials went to
their house and reported that Teodoro was found dead in the woods
of Purok 4, Brgy. Sampaloc Bugon. Romel, together with Susan and

5
Vide: Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 27, 2018 of Romel De Chavez, Records, pp. 12-13;
TSN dated October 30, 2018, pp. 4-8.
6
TSN dated December 11, 2018, pp. 3-7.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 4 of 17
Decision

Marvin, immediately went with the police officers and barangay

officials to the place where the dead body was found. Romel was
surprised when he learned that the place where his deceased brother
was found was just about 20 to 30 meters away from the place where
he witnessed the earlier shooting incident. From the side of the
barangay road, drops of blood where seen up to the place where
Teodoro's dead body was found.

Romel further testified that he knew that appellant and his late
brother Teodoro had prior altercations over some drinking sessions.
It appears that appellant was holding a grudge against the victim
because the latter built a farmhouse in his property which sells
seedlings to the residents. Appellant got angry because the same
should have been granted to the barangay so that the latter would be
the one to benefit from it. Teodoro just ignored appellant's threats
and misbehavior.7

The victim's wife Susan De Chavez testified and corroborated

Romel's testimony that indeed appellant had a grudge against her late
husband Teodoro. Before the incident, the latter told Susan that
appellant was angry at him due to the construction of the farmhouse.
There were also times that appellant threatened to kill Teodoro
whenever the former was under the influence of liquor. The victim's
house is only 2 kilometers away from that of appellant. After the
incident, Susan had never seen appellant because the latter already
went into hiding. Appellant was arrested only after six (6) months
from the time of the incident. Susan further testified that her husband
who was a tricycle driver and sometime sells vegetables in the market
earns approximately P1,500.00 per month. 8

The prosecution also presented the Certificate of Death 9

showing that the immediate cause of death of the victim who was
fifty-one (51) years old was "gunshot wounds on the head"; and, the
official receipt10 dated March 22, 2018 issued by M. Gayeta Funeral
Home for the burial expenses.

For the defense, four (4) witnesses were presented, namely:

appellant, his daughter Anna Jean M. Custodio, Elvin A. Escamillas
and Mario A. Valdoria.

7
Supra at note 5.
8
Vide: Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 27, 2018 of Susan De Chavez, Records, pp. 6-7; TSN
dated November 13, 2018, pp. 4-5.
9
Exhibit "C", Records, p. 131.
10
Exhibit "F", Records, p. 130.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 5 of 17
Decision

Appellant simply raised the defense of denial and alibi. He

alleged that he was not at the place where the shooting incident
happened which was five (5) Meralco posts away from his house.
During that time, he was sleeping in his house. On March 17, 2018, at
around 12:00 noon, he went to attend a baptism with his family
because his daughter Anna Jean M. Custodio was one of the
godmothers. They went home around 5:00 p.m. and appellant drove
his tricycle. After arriving at their house, they watched television
together with their neighbor Elvin A. Escamillas. The latter frequents
their house to watch television. Appellant did not leave the house
because he already dozed off in their sofa having drunk a lot during
the occasion. He woke up at around 1:00 a.m. and saw his daughter
Anna Jean still watching television. He then returned to sleep. At
around 5:00 a.m. the following day, he received a call from Brgy.
Captain Osmundo Tatlonghari and told him that a dead body was
found in their barangay. He was supposed to go with him and the
other barangay officials to check the crime scene but appellant was
told that the police already took care of the matter. He likewise
denied that he went into hiding and that he had a prior
misunderstanding with the victim relative to the latter's farmhouse.11

Anna Jean M. Custodio testified that during the purported

incident, his father only stayed inside their house. Appellant fell
asleep in their sofa because he was drunk after attending the baptism.
From the time they arrived at their house at 5:00 p.m. up to 12:00
midnight, appellant never left. The whole family, together with their
neighbor Elvin A. Escamillas, stayed at home watching television.12

Elvin A. Escamillas testified that he was appellant's

friend/neighbor and his house is only around 200 meters away from
the latter. On March 17, 2018, at around 6:00 p.m., he arrived at
appellant's house and watched television thereat. He frequently
watched television with appellant's family because they have a cable
and Elvin is living alone. When he arrived there on the said date,
appellant was already sleeping in the sofa. He left at around 11:00
p.m. with appellant still sleeping soundly.13

Mario A. Valdoria testified that he knew appellant because they

were both barangay kagawad of Sampaloc Bugon. He resides at

11
Vide: Ganting Sinumpaang Salaysay of Appellant, Records, pp. 205-206; Judicial Affidavit of
Appellant, Records, pp 191-204; TSN dated July 3, 2019, pp. 3-6.
12
Vide: Judicial Affidavit of Anna Jean M. Custodio, Records, pp. 278-290; TSN dated October
8, 2019, pp. 3-4.
13
Vide: Sinumpaang Salaysay of Elvin A. Escamillas, Records, p. 53; Judicial Affidavit of Elvin
A. Escamillas, Records, pp. 255-264; TSN dated September 3, 2019, pp. 3-4.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 6 of 17
Decision

Purok 5 or around three (3) kilometers away from appellant's house.

He likewise received a phone call from their barangay captain about
the alleged shooting incident. They went together to the crime scene
and somebody reported that he heard gunshots in the area. When
they searched the woody area, they saw the dead body of the victim
and his head was covered in blood. They called and reported the same
to the police who sent a team to investigate the incident.14

The testimony of Anna Joy Custodio Arpia was dispensed with

after the parties stipulated that the same was merely corroborative of
that of Anna Jean M. Custodio.15

In the assailed Decision16 dated February 18, 2020, the court a

quo found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide. It gave full credence to the clear and straightforward
testimony of the prosecution eyewitness Romel De Chavez who
categorically identified appellant as the person who shot and killed
the victim. While the identity of the victim was proven through
circumstantial evidence, there was a direct evidence showing that
appellant was indeed the perpetrator of the crime. Appellant's
defenses of denial and alibi cannot overcome the prosecution
eyewitness' positive identification of appellant as well as the latter's
participation in the killing of the victim. The pertinent portions of the
Decision read:

In this case, what only requires circumstantial

evidence was the fact that it was Teodolfo as the
victim. As far as the identity of the killer of Teodolfo is
concerned direct evidence is established by the
prosecution. Romel witnessed how Julio shot
Teodolfo by the use of short firearm. When Romel
and Julio had faced each other[,] the latter warned the
former if he wanted also to be killed. The gunman was
positively identified by Romel to be Julio. Romel
could not be mistaken, Julio has been known to him
for a long time already.

On the other hand, it is the identity of the

victim which requires circumstantial evidence. First,
Julio fired a gun against a man in front of him. The
victim of the shooting was not at once recognized by
Romel because of limited visibility of the place where
it happened. When Romel returned to the house of

14
Vide: Judicial Affidavit of Mario A. Valdoria, Records, pp. 306-319; TSN dated November 5,
2019, pp. 3-4.
15
Vide: Order dated December 4, 2019, Records, p. 338.
16
Supra at note 1.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 7 of 17
Decision

Teodolfo the latter was still not there, he narrated to

Susan, the wife of Teodolfo, what he witnessed Julio
did. At about 12:00 midnight of March 17, 2018, he
was awaken[ed] and was informed that his brother
was found dead 20 to 30 meters away from the road
where he saw Julio fired at a man. xxx [t]he finding of
the deceased body by the barangay officials xxx
happened just few hours after Julio, as witnessed by
Romel, shot a man. xxx [J]ulio after fatally shooting
Teodolfo carried the latter few meters away from
where the shooting happened to temporarily hide the
crime he did.

x x x

In this case, evidence show that the accused['s]

house where he was allegedly sleeping is situated in
the same barangay, Sampaloc Bogon, Sariaya, Quezon
where Teodolfo was killed. In fact, defense evidence
established that it was only five posts of Meralco away
from each other, it means more or less a kilometer
away. That distance of one kilometer by tricycle could
be [traveled] in few, may be not more than five
minutes. It was not physically impossible for Julio to
take some time [off] from sleep in order for him to
commit the crime he is charged of. xxx

[B]esides, Julio, whenever he gets drunk

challenges Teodolfo to a fight. The latter even told
Marvin that if he is found killed, no other than but
Julio did it. These circumstances show that Julio had
been harboring grudge against Teodolfo.

It is to be noted that the accused['s] defense of

alibi and denial is corroborated by testimonies of his
relatives and friends. According to the Supreme Court
these shall be viewed with suspicion and skepticism.
xxx

With the court finding of the accused

criminally [liable], the accused shall be likewise held
civilly liable based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code which states that a person who [is] criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Based on
jurisprudence[,] the accused shall be liable for the
death of Teodolfo for damages ex-delicto which is in
the [absence] of any modifying circumstance is
Php75,000.00. In the absence of any evidence to
prove actual damages, temperate damages in the
amount of Php25,000.00 can be awarded. Likewise,
an exemplary damages in the amount of
Php50,000.00 can be awarded so that it will serve as
a deterrent to others to commit a crime. Lastly, the
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 8 of 17
Decision

loss of income can also be awarded because the

prosecution was trying to prove that the accused
before his death had income for his family. This was
supported by the accused when he said that there
were instances that he was with Teodoro selling
vegetables in Procy vegetable market. However, due
to lack of documentary proof to prove the victim[']s
income, the court awards income based on the
minimum income prevailing in 2018 in Region 4 for a
laborer.17

Hence, this appeal in which appellant raised the following

Assignment of Errors, to wit:

I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING

APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE ONLY THROUGH
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

II.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT

APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT
THAT WOULD WARRANT HIS ACQUITTAL.18

THE ISSUE

The sole issue in the instant case is whether or not appellant's

guilt of the crime of homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

THE RULING

There is no merit in the instant appeal.

Appellant contends that the court a quo erred in finding him

guilty of homicide based solely on circumstantial evidence. The
testimony of prosecution eyewitness Romel De Chavez was incredible
since there was no other person present when he allegedly witnessed

17
Rollo, pp. 85-88.
18
Rollo, pp. 59-60.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 9 of 17
Decision

the shooting incident. Appellant's defenses should have been given

credence by the court. Hence, a judgment of acquittal must be
rendered in his favor.

We disagree.

The elements of homicide defined and penalized under Article

249 of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (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. 19

Here, the guilt of appellant was proven beyond reasonable

doubt on the strength of the testimony of prosecution eyewitness
Romel De Chavez who narrated that in the evening of March 17, 2018,
while he was driving his tricycle along the barangay road in Purok 4,
Sampaloc Bugon, he saw appellant holding a short gun and shot the
victim twice on the head. While Romel was not able to recognize the
victim as his brother Teodoro De Chavez since the place was not well-
lit and appellant was blocking his view of the victim, Romel
categorically and positively identified appellant as the one who shot
the victim when the latter turned around and the headlight coming
from Romel's tricycle caught appellant's attention. Appellant even
shouted at Rommel, "Hoy ikaw! Ano! Gusto mo rin bang patayin
kita?!" causing Romel to drive away in fear. The pertinent portions of
the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Romel are quoted:

Q: So Mr. Witness, you stated here in your affidavit

that you were driving your tricycle at that time?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And that you heard several gunshots?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what [did] you see after you heard those

gunshots?
A: I saw him, sir.

Q: Who are you referring to?

A: Julio Custodio, sir.

Q: And you stated here that he was holding a

firearm?
A: Yes, sir.

19
Anisco vs. People, G.R. No. 242263, November 18, 2020; Ambagan, Jr. vs. People, G.R. Nos.
204481-82, October 14, 2015; Villanueva vs. Caparas, G.R. No. 190969, January 30, 2013.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 10 of 17
Decision

Q: And were you able to talk to the accused?

A: No, sir.

Q: And you stated here in your affidavit that he

uttered, "Hoy ikaw ano gusto mo rin bang
patayin kita", is this correct?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: After that what did the accused do?

A: I can no longer remember sir because I did not
[notice].

Q: How about the victim, did you come to know who

was the victim?
A: Yes sir I knew the victim after a few hours.

Q: And who was the victim?

A: Teodolfo de Chavez, sir.

Q: How are you related to the victim?

A: He is my brother, sir.

x x x

Q: There was a body lying on the ground, did you see

this body after the incident?
A: Yes Sir, I came back.

Q: And whose body is this?

A: It was my brother, sir.

x x x

Q: So the incident happened on March 17, 2018, were

you able to see the accused after that?
A: Only during the proceedings, sir.

Q: He is present today?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Will you please point to him?

THE WITNESS IS POINTING TO A MAN WEARING A
STRIPE SHIRT AND WHEN ASKED FOR HIS
IDENTIFICATION, HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS
JULIO CUSTODIO.20
[Emphasis supplied.]

20
TSN dated October 30, 2018, pp. 4-6.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 11 of 17
Decision

The court a quo correctly gave credence to the testimony of

prosecution eyewitness Romel De Chavez. His answers to the
questions propounded to him were intelligible, candid and
unwavering. Absent any arbitrariness or unless some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence has not been considered, the
court a quo's assignment of values and weight on his testimony
should be respected. It is an oft-repeated rule that appellate courts
will not disturb the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses in the absence of a clear showing that the trial judge had
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance.21

In an attempt to discredit the credibility of prosecution

eyewitness Romel De Chavez, appellant claimed that his testimony
was merely circumstantial. There was no other person present when
appellant allegedly shot the victim and Romel only came to know
about his brother's death from other persons. This, however, deserves
scant consideration. What is important is that the prosecution
eyewitness was consistent on the principal occurrence and the
identity of the accused as the assailant. As aptly held by the court a
quo, this constitutes direct evidence and not merely circumstantial
evidence. Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which
"goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue,
which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue." 22
In this case, what was proven through circumstantial evidence was
only the identity of the victim. However, with respect to the identity of
appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, the same has been duly
established through direct evidence when prosecution eyewitness
Romel De Chavez identified appellant because the latter was a
barangay kagawad of Sampaloc Bugon whom Romel had met on
several occasions.

Additionally, no ill motive was imputed against prosecution

eyewitness Romel De Chavez to testify falsely against appellant. In the
absence of any evidence that the prosecution witness was motivated
by improper motive, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of
the witnesses shall not be interfered with by appellate courts. 23
Furthermore, the relationship between the prosecution witness and
the victim would further bolster his credibility. In People vs.

21
People vs. Adalia, G.R. No. 235990, January 22, 2020; People vs. Almosara, G.R. No. 223512,
July 24, 2019; Napone, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 193085, November 29, 2017.
22
Espinosa vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 191834, 191900 & 191951, March 4, 2020.
23
People vs. Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011; People vs. Gallo, G.R. No. 185277, March 18,
2010; People vs. Calimon, G.R. No. 175229, January 29, 2009.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 12 of 17
Decision

Dayaday y Dagooc24, the Supreme Court ruled that a witness'

relationship to a victim of a crime would make his or her testimony
more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested
in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real
culprit. The natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the
victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would actually deter
them from implicating persons other than the true culprits.

It may also be well to state that the physical evidence further

corroborates the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Romel De
Chavez. According to the victim's Certificate of Death25, the
immediate cause of death was gunshot wounds on the head. This
coincides with Romel's statement that he saw appellant shot the
victim twice on the head.

In the face of strong evidence against him, all appellant could

offer in his defense is his bare denial of any participation in the crime
and alibi that he was sleeping in his house when the incident
happened.

No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that

denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by
strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 26 Denial could
not prevail over a direct, positive and categorical identification of
appellant as the victim's killer. As between a positive and categorical
testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial,
on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.27

Alibi, on the other hand, is the weakest of all defenses for it is

easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason it is
generally rejected. For alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the
accused establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at
the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically
impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 28
For appellant's alibi to be credible and given due weight, he must
show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Such is not the case

24
G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017.
25
Records, p. 131.
26
People vs. San Miguel, G.R. No. 247956, October 7, 2020; People vs. Ronquillo, G.R. No.
214762, September 20, 2017; People vs. Regalado, G.R. No. 210752, August 17, 2016.
27
BBB vs. People, G.R. No. 249307, August 27, 2020; People of the Philippines vs. Bacero, G.R.
No. 208527, July 20, 2016; People vs. Gersamio, G.R. No. 207098, July 8, 2015.
28
People vs. Castillo y De Vera, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020; People vs. Dillatan, Sr. y
Pat, G.R. No. 212191, September 5, 2018; People vs. Regalado, G.R. No. 210752, August 17,
2016.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 13 of 17
Decision

here. The court a quo correctly found that it was not physically
impossible for appellant to be at the crime scene in the evening of
March 17, 2018. To note, his house was only five (5) Meralco posts
away from the place where the crime was committed. Appellant could
have easily driven his tricycle there without being noticed by his
family and return in a very short amount of time.

Furthermore, although appellant's alibi was corroborated by his

daughter Anna Jean M. Custodio and neighbor Elvin A. Escamillas,
the RTC did not find them as credible witnesses. Repeatedly, this
Court generally accords the highest respect to the evaluation of the
RTC. In criminal cases, factual findings of the trial court are generally
accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such
findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. 29 Besides,
the High Court gives even less probative weight to a defense of alibi
when it is corroborated by friends and relatives. One can easily
fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When
a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, as
in this case, courts have more reason to view such testimony with
skepticism.30 Here, nothing significant has been shown to convince
this Court that the RTC acted with bias or ignored something of
substance that could have, in any degree, warranted an acquittal of
appellant.

Anent the penalty imposed by the court a quo, that is, six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum, as minimum, to
twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as
maximum, We find a need to modify the same. While the court a quo
correctly pegged the minimum at six (6) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, the maximum penalty should be modified from twelve
(12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty
for the crime of homicide is reclusion temporal. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e.
prision mayor, or anywhere from six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years. The maximum term shall be that which could be
properly imposed under the law, which is fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months, and one (1) day, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months of reclusion temporal in its medium period, there being no

29
People vs. Loma y Obsequio, G.R. No. 236544, October 5, 2020; People vs. Palma y Varcas,
G.R. No. 212151, February 18, 2015.
30
People vs. Consorte y Franco, G.R. No. 194068, July 9, 2014.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 14 of 17
Decision

aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission of

the crime.31

When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be

awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2)
actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary
damages; and (5) temperate damages.32

We affirm the court a quo's award of P50,000.00 as exemplary

damages. However, We deem it proper to modify the award of the
other damages to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. In People v.
Jugueta33, the Supreme Court provided guidelines with respect to the
award of damages in criminal cases.

The award of civil indemnity must be reduced from P75,000.00

to P50,000.00.34 Anent the award of temperate damages of
P25,000.00, the same must, however, be increased to P50,000.00.
Since the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses has been
ascertained by the receipt dated March 22, 2018 in the amount of
only P27,000.00, the same should be increased to P50,000.00
representing temperate damages.35

This Court also deems it proper to award moral damages in the

amount of P50,000.00. This is in line with existing jurisprudence 36
that the heirs of the victim are entitled thereto even in the absence of
proof of mental and emotional suffering considering that a violent
death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and
anguish on the part of the victim's family.

Regarding the award for lost earnings, the general rule is that
there must be documentary proof to support indemnity for loss of
earning capacity. Admittedly, there are exceptions to this rule,viz.:

By way of exception, damages for loss of

earning capacity may be awarded despite the
absence of documentary evidence when (1) the

31
People vs. Aguila y Rosales, G.R. No. 238455, December 9, 2020; People vs. Menil y Bongkit,
G.R. No. 233205, June 26, 2019.
32
People vs. Masilang y Laciste, G.R. No. 246466, January 26, 2021; People vs. Sulayao y
Labasbas, G.R. No. 198952, September 6, 2017; People vs. Cosgafa y Clamocha, G.R. No.
218250, July 10, 2017.
33
G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
34
People vs. Diu y Kotsesa, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013.
35
People vs. Sulayao y Labasbas, G.R. No. 198952, September 6, 2017.
36
People vs. Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003; Palaganas vs. People, G.R. No.
165483, September 12, 2006.
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 15 of 17
Decision

deceased is self-employed earning less than the

minimum wage under current labor laws, and
judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is
available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily
wage worker earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws.37
[Emphasis supplied.]
cra

In the case at bench, We agree with the court a quo that the
victim's heirs are indeed entitled to an award for loss of earning
capacity. While no documentary proof was presented, the victim's
surviving spouse Susan De Chavez categorically testified that her late
husband was earning a monthly income of approximately
P1,500.00.38 Considering the fact that the victim was self-employed
earning less than the minimum wage, this case clearly falls within the
exception. In People vs. Wahiman y Rayos39, citing the case of People
vs. Gutierrez40, the Supreme Court held that although the prosecution
did not present evidence to support the widow's claim for loss of
earning capacity, such failure does not necessarily prevent recovery of
the damages if the testimony of the surviving spouse is sufficient to
establish a basis from which the court can make a fair and reasonable
estimate of the damages for the loss of earning capacity of the victim.

Based on prevailing jurisprudence41, the simplified formula for

the computation of loss of earning capacity is: Loss of Earning
Capacity = [2/3 x (80 – age of the deceased)] x 1/2 annual gross
income. The step-by-step guide to compute an award for loss of
earning capacity is as follows: (1) Subtract the age of the deceased
from 80. (2) Multiply the answer in (1) by 2, and divide it by 3 (these
operations are interchangeable). (3) Multiply 50% to the annual gross
income of the deceased. (4) Multiply the answer in (2) by the answer
in (3). This is the loss of earning capacity to be awarded. Thus,
applying only the amount of P1,500.00 as the victim's monthly salary
based on the testimony of his wife, the following computation must
be adopted, to wit:

2 x (80 - 51) x P9,000.00 = P173,999.97

3

37
People vs. Wahiman y Rayos, G.R. No. 200942, June 16, 2015; Jose vs. Angeles, G.R. No.
187899, October 23, 2013.
38
Vide: TSN dated November 13, 2018, p. 5.
39
G.R. No. 200942, June 16, 2015.
40
G.R. No. 116281, February 8, 1999.
41
People vs. Bacero y Casabon, G.R. No. 208527, July 20, 2016; People vs. Wahiman y Rayos,
G.R. No. 200942, June 16, 2015
CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 16 of 17
Decision

Hence, the court a quo's award of P922,944.00 as loss of

earning capacity must be reduced to P173,999.97.

We affirm the court a quo's imposition on all the amounts of

damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from date of finality of this
Decision until fully paid.42

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

DENIED. The Decision dated February 18, 2020 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City in Criminal Case No. 2018-1442
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant
Julio Maaliw Custodio is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum. Appellant is further ordered to pay
the heirs of the victim Teodolfo De Chavez the following:

1) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as

civil indemnity;

2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as

moral damages;

3) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as

exemplary damages;

4) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as

temperate damages; and,

5) One Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand

Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos
and Ninety-Seven Centavos (P173,999.97)
as Loss of Earning Capacity.

All damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment
until fully paid.

42
People vs. Caliao, G.R. No. 226392, July 23, 2018; People vs. Villariez, G.R. No. 211160,
September 2, 2015.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45447 Page 17 of 17
Decision

SO ORDERED.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG JENNIFER JOY C. ONG

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.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixth Division