PAULINO DELOS SANTOS, JR.
ALIAS "SKYLAB
Appellant was charged with parricide under the
following Information, viz.:
11:30 pm of May 8, 2011
at Purok 2, Brgy. Macolabo Island, Municipality of
Paracale, Province of Camarines Norte,
PAULINO DELOS SANTOS, JR. ALIAS "SKYLAB
being the son of PAULINO DELOS SANTOS SR.,
with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and stab his father,
PAULINO DELOS SANTOS SR., using a bladed
weapon, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal
wound on his chest that caused his instantaneous
death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of
the victim.
The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court-
Daet, Camarines Norte, Branch 39 and docketed as
Criminal Case No. 14834.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty."5 Trial
ensued. Michael L. San Gabriel (Michael), Dr.
Virginia B. Mazo (Dr. Mazo) and Police Officer 3
(PO3) Gil V. Obog (PO3 Obog) testified for the
prosecution. On the other hand, appellant testified as
lone witness for the defense.
Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellant's
conviction for parricide?
Ruling
We affirm with modification.
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code defines and
penalizes parricide, viz.:
Article 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or
descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of
parricide and shall be punished by the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death.
Parricide is committed when (1) a person is killed; (2)
the accused is the killer; and (3) the deceased is
either the legitimate spouse of the accused, or any
legitimate or illegitimate parent, child, ascendant or
descendant of the accused.19
The presence of the third element here is
undisputed. Appellant himself admitted and declared
under oath that the deceased Paulino, Sr. is his
father. He also stipulated this fact during the pre-
trial.20
That appellant's certificate of live birth was not
presented in evidence does not negate his
culpability. For oral evidence of the fact of his filial
relationship with the victim may be
considered.21 In People v. Ayuman,22 the accused
admitted during the trial that the victim was his son.
Although the victim's birth certificate was not
presented, the Court considered as competent
evidence the accused's admission of his filiation to
the victim and convicted him of parricide.
As for the first and second elements, Michael
positively and categorically identified appellant as the
person who killed his father, Paulino, Sr., thus:
Witness pointing to his upper left chest.23
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found
Michael's testimony to be straightforward, truthful,
and credible, hence, the same deserves full faith and
credence. Consider:
First. Michael narrated in detail the events that led
to the killing of Paulino, Sr.
1. from the time appellant arrived drunk at the
scene,
2. armed with a knife,
3. appellant argued with his brother,
4. warned his father not to interfere,
5. challenged his father to a fight,
6. pushed him, and stabbed him in the upper
left chest,
7. causing the latter to fall on the ground and
die.
The fact that Michael did not specify which
direction the fatal blow came from and the type of
bladed weapon used by appellant
What matters is the consistency of the witness in
testifying on the essential elements of the crime
and his positive and categorical identification of
the accused as the offender.
Second. Michael's lone testimony was found by
the trial court to be positive, categorical, and
credible, hence, it is sufficient to support a verdict
of conviction.
People v. Hillado25 decrees:
Thus, the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found
positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient
to support a conviction especially when the
testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity
and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally
and in a straightforward manner. Witnesses are to
be weighed, not numbered. Evidence is assessed
in terms of quality and not quantity. Therefore, it is
not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on
the basis of the testimony of a lone witness. For
although the number of witnesses may be
considered a factor in the appreciation of
evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with
the greatest number and conviction can still be
had on the basis of the credible and positive
testimony of a single witness. Corroborative
evidence is deemed necessary "only when there
are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the
witness falsified the truth or that his observation
had been inaccurate."26 x x x (Emphases
supplied)
More, Michael 's testimony conforms with physical
evidence. The death certificate issued by Dr. Mazo
shows that Paulino, Sr. sustained a single stab
wound which caused his death.
Third. As for appellant's motive to kill his father,
Michael testified that on the night in question,
appellant appeared to be intoxicated and got into a
heated argument with his brother. As a
consequence, their father stepped in and prodded
appellant to leave. But appellant resented it and
warned his father not to interfere. He also
challenged his father to a fight. They were pushing
each other when appellant suddenly stabbed his
father in the chest, causing the latter to fall on the
ground. Appellant, therefore, cannot truthfully
claim he had no motive to kill his father. In any
event, while proof of motive for the commission of
the offense does not show guilt, neither does its
absence establish the innocence of accused for
the crime charged.27
In People v. Ducabo,28 this Court held that motive
is irrelevant when the accused has been positively
identified by an eyewitness, as in this case. Motive
is not synonymous with intent. Motive alone is
neither a proof nor an essential element of a
crime.
Fourth. Michael was not shown to have been
impelled by any ill will to falsely impute such
heinous crime as parricide on appellant. His
ℒαwρhi ৷
testimony, therefore, is worthy of belief and
credence.
Fifth. Appellant's flight from the crime scene
militates against his claim of innocence. On
countless occasions, the Court has held that the
flight of an accused may be taken as evidence to
establish his guilt.30 For a truly innocent person
would normally take the first available opportunity
to defend himself and to assert his innocence
Sixth. Suffice it to state 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.32 Hence,
the Court defers and accords finality to the trial
court's factual findings especially when the same
carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals,
as in this case
Finally. Appellant's denial and alibi cannot prevail
over the positive identification of appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime. Besides, denial and alibi
are self-serving and deserve no weight in law
especially when unsubstantiated by any credible
evidence, as in this case.34 At any rate,
appellant's admission that he was only six (6)
meters away from the crime scene even precludes
the impossibility of him getting to the crime scene,
committing the crime, and returning to his house
thereafter.
Penalty
All told, We affirm appellant's conviction for parricide.
The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to
death.35 There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance proven, both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals correctly sentenced appellant
to reclusion perpetua.
Pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02,36 the phrase
"without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify
the penalty of reclusion perpetua only if the accused
should have been sentenced to suffer the death
penalty had it not been for Republic Act No. 9346
(RA 9346).37 Here, appellant was sentenced
to reclusion perpetua since there is no aggravating
circumstance that would have otherwise warranted
the imposition of the death penalty were it not for RA
9346. Hence, the phrase "without eligibility for
parole" need not be borne in the decision to qualify
appellant's sentence.38
We further affirm the award of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity. In accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence,39 however, the awards of moral and
exemplary damages should be increased to
P75,000.00 each. Temperate damages of
P50,000.00, in lieu of actual damages, are also
granted as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the
victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact
amount was not proved.40 Finally, these amounts
shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from
finality of this Decision until fully paid.41
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision dated June 28, 2018 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08894
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant
Paulino Delos Santos, Jr. is found GUILTY of
parricide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is
required to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each; and
temperate damages of P50,000.00 to the heirs of
Paulino Delos Santos, Sr.. These amounts shall earn
six percent (6o/o) interest per annum from finality of
this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
