G.R. No. 90625 May 23, 1991chanrobles virtual law library P !P" !

# $% P%&"&PP&N ', Plaintiff-Appellee,chanrobles virtual law library v. ( N )&*$! )+P&$+N y M+R$&N, , -(enny- an. #R ) ) G/0M+N, accuse.. ( N )&*$! )+P&$+N y M+R$&N , -(enny-, Accused-Appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant. )+1&) , 2R., J.3 This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal (Branch 7 , !an "ateo# $th %u&icial Region, fin&ing the accuse&'appellant guilty of the crime of Robbery with (omici&e an& sentencing him to) . . . suffer the penalty of RE !"S#O$ PERPET"A, an& to pay the heirs of the victim Rolan&o *mil in the amount of Thirty Thousan& (+,-,---.--# +esos, without subsi&iary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 1 .nly the accuse&'appellant was trie&. (is co'accuse&, /re& &e 0uzman, remaine& at large an& the court or&ere& the archival of the case as against him, to be revive& upon his arrest. The information file& with the court a %uo on 7 *ugust 1234 against accuse&'appellant an& his co'accuse& rea&s in part as follows) That on or about the 14th &ay of "ay, 1234, in Barangay !an Rafael, "unicipality of Ro&riguez (formerly "ontalban#, +rovince of Rizal, +hilippines, a place within the 5uris&iction of this (onorable Court, the above'name& accuse& conspiring an& confe&erating together an& mutually helping an& ai&ing one another, with intent to gain, arme& with &ea&ly weapon an& by means of force an& violence, then an& there willfully, unlawfully an& feloniously too6, robbe&7stole an& carrie& (sic# away two (8# pieces of men9s watches worth .ne Thousan& .ne (un&re& :ighty :ight +esos (+1,133.--#, one (1# pair of long pants worth Two (un&re& /ifty +esos (+8 -.--# an& cash money in the amount of !eventy /ive +esos (+7 .--# belonging to .rencia :. *mil, without the 6nowle&ge an& consent of sai& owner an& to her &amage an& pre5u&ice in the total amount of .ne Thousan& /ive (un&re& Thirteen +esos (+1, 1,.--#, +hilippine Currency; that on the occasion of the sai& robbery an& for the purpose of enabling them to ta6e, steal an& carry away the above'mentione& articles, the herein accuse& in pursuance of their conspiracy, &i& then an& there willfully, unlawfully an& feloniously, with evi&ent preme&itation an& ta6ing a&vantage of their superior strength an& with intent to 6ill, treacherously attac6, assault an& employ personal violence upon the person of Rolan&o *mil (an eight year ol& chil&# by stabbing him on the nec6 an& hitting him several times on the hea& with a piece of woo&, to prevent him from ma6ing an outcry, thereby inflicting upon him physical in5uries which &irectly cause& his &eath. 2chanrobles virtual law library

<hen arraigne& on 8 =ovember 1234 with the assistance of counsel de oficio, *tty. "agsanoc, accuse& entere& a plea of not guilty. 3chanrobles virtual law library *t the sche&ule& hearing on 1- /ebruary 1237, new counsel de oficio for the accuse&, *tty. 0abriel *lberto of the Citizens >egal *ssistance .ffice (C>*.# of !an "ateo, Rizal, manifeste& that the accuse& ha& e?presse& to him the &esire to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. The court forthwith issue& an or&er rea&ing as follows) *tty. *lberto of C>*. an& de oficio counsel for the accuse& manifeste& that the accuse& has manifeste& his &esire to ma6e a plea of guilty to a lesser offense but the circumstances are yet to be ma&e in &etails. @t appears that there are two mitigating circumstances that maybe applie&. The +rosecuting /iscal ma&e no ob5ection but also manifeste& that he has to loo6 into the penalty applicable. The counsel for the accuse& an& the +rosecuting /iscal 5ointly move& that the hearing of this case be reset to another &ate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library <(:R:/.R:, reset the hearing of this case for "arch 2, 1237 at 2),- *.". . . . . 4chanrobles virtual law library The sche&ule& hearing of 2 "arch 1237 was cancelle& an& reset to *pril 1,, 1237 in view of the reAuire& vacation leave of absence of the 5u&ge.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library .n 1, *pril 1237, upon motion of the prosecution an& the &efense in view of the pro5ecte& settlement of the civil liability of this case, the hearing was reset to 12 "ay 1237. 5.n that &ate, however, counsel de oficio for the accuse& &i& not appear, hence Ba report on the pro5ecte& settlement of the civil aspect of the case cannot be ma&eB an& the hearing was reset again to 1 %une 1237 6 which sche&ule was later on cancelle& &ue to the compulsory retirement of the presi&ing 5u&ge (%u&ge Conra&o Beltran# which too6 effect on 7 %une 1237. 5chanrobles virtual law library @n the meantime, %u&ge /rancisco C. Ro&riguez, %r. presi&e& over the trial court 6chanrobles virtual law library The initial reception of evi&ence too6 place on 8$ *ugust 1237 with the accuse&'appellant represente& by *tty. Ben5amin +ozon, also of the C>*..chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library .n various &ates thereafter, hearings were ha& until the parties complete& the presentation of their evi&ence. <itnesses .rencia *mil an& Cpl. Ro&olfo Rivera for the prosecution testifie& &uring the incumbency of %u&ge Ro&riguez. The rest testifie& before %u&ge :&ilberto (. =oble5as who succee&e& %u&ge Ro&riguez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library .n "ay 1232, the trial court promulgate& its Decision 9 the &ispositive portion of which rea&s)

<(:R:/.R:, premises consi&ere&, after appraising the evi&ence presente& by the prosecution an& the evi&ence of the &efense, the Court fin&s the accuse& B:=:D@CT. D*+@T*= y

"*RT@= 0C@>TD B:D.=D R:*!.=*B>: D.CBT of the crime of R.BB:RD <@T( (."@C@D:, punishable un&er *rticle 82$, par. 1 of the Revise& +enal Co&e an& sentences him to suffer the penalty of RE !"S#O$ PERPET"A, an& to pay the heirs of the victim Rolan&o *mil in the amount of Thirty Thousan& (+,-,---.--# +esos, without subsi&iary imprisonment in case of insolvency.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library <ith respect to the case against /R:D D: 0CE"*=, the recor&s of the case insofar as he is concerne& is hereby or&ere& *RC(@F:D to be revive& upon his arrest when he may be hear& to answer for the offense charge&. .n 11 "ay 1 232, accuse&'appellant file& his =otice of *ppeal, manifesting therein that he was appealing the &ecision to this Court. 10 (owever, in the .r&er of 11 "ay 1232, %u&ge Cipriano &e Roma erroneously &irecte& the transmittal of the recor&s of the case to the Court of *ppeals. 11The Court of *ppeals transmitte& to this Court on $ "arch 1232 the recor&s which were erroneously transmitte& to it. 12chanrobles virtual law library @n this appeal accuse&'appellant assigns only one error) T(: TR@*> C.CRT :RR:D @= =.T *++>D@=0 T(: @=D:T:R"@=*T: !:=T:=C: >*< T(*T /*F.R! T(: *CCC!:D *++:>>*=T. 12 (e is thus &eeme& to be in complete agreement with the fin&ings an& conclusion of facts by the trial court which <e Auote) The evi&ence a&&uce& by the prosecution more than prove with moral certainty the guilt of the accuse& Bene&icto Dapitan for the crime of R.BB:RD <@T( (."@C@D:. <hile there may be no &irect evi&ence lin6ing the accuse& to sai& crime, the witnesses who testifie& more than fully satisfy the reAuirements for conviction on the basis of circumstancial evi&ence, because it affor&s enough basis for a reasonable inference of the e?istence of the fact thereby sought to be prove&, that the accuse& performe& the criminal act.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library .rencia *mil, principal witness for the prosecution testifie& that at aroun& 3),- in the morning of "ay 14, 1234, she left for her farm which was about - meters away, leaving behin& in her house his a&opte& son Rolan&o (the victim#very &uch alive.(T!=, page , hearing of *ugust 8$, 1237# who refuse& to go with her because he chose to play in the house instea&; an& that because she hear& the bar6ing of her &og which arouse& her suspicion, she imme&iately returne& an& saw the accuse& Bene&icto Dapitan an& his co'accuse& /re& &e 0uzman passing through her fence (T!=, pp. '4, hearing of *ugust 8$, 1237#; an& that when she entere& her house calling her chil&9s name, an& seeing the bac6&oor open, she entere& an& saw Rolan&o9s bo&y sprawle& on the floor an& his brain Bscattere&B. =ear his bo&y was a piece of woo&, also bloo&ie&. Thin6ing her son to be still alive she too6 her in her arms, place& him on the table an& that was the time she realize& he was &ea&. (T!= pages 4'7, hearing of *ug. 8$, 1237#.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

!he li6ewise testifie& that she lost two watches worth +1,13-; pants at +8 -.-- an& cash amounting to +7 .--; an& after her son9s burial she further foun& that her chil&9s toy worth + --.--, a flashlight an& a bolo worth +$ .-- an& +18-.--, respectively, were missing. (T!=, pages 3'2, hearing of *ugust 8$, 1237#.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library .rencia *mil9s testimony is li6ewise corroborate& on its material points by the testimony of Celo =ilo, another prosecution witness. (e testifie& that between the hours of 3)-- to 2)-- in the morning of "ay 14, 1234, he saw two persons entering the house of "rs. .rencia *mil, one of whom he i&entifie& as Bene&icto Dapitan, (T!=, pages $' , hearing of .ctober 84, 1237#. (e positively i&entifie& Bene&icto Dapitan who was in Court (T!=, pages '4, hearing of .ctober 84, 1237#. (e li6ewise testifie& that when the two suspects entere& the house of "rs. *mil, he hear& the voice of a chil&. @n the statement he gave the police investigators (:?hibit B# which he confirme& when he testifie&, pertinent portions of which are herein Auote&, he sai&) ??? ??? ??? T =oong "ay 14, 1234, sa pagitan ng i'a ())) n* u&a*a, natatan&aan mo ba noon 6ung saan 6a naroroonGchanrobles virtual law library ! *6o po ay galing sa aming bahay at a6o po ay patungo sa bun&o6 para magtanim po ng punong saging. ??? ??? ??? T =oong i6aw ay papa&aan sa malapit sa bahay ni .rencia *mil, wala 6a bang napansin na tao na nagtungo &oon sa 6anilang bahay.Gchanrobles virtual law library ! "ayroon po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library T =a6ilala mo ba naman 6ung sinong tao ang iyong na6ita na &umaan &oon sa bahay nina "rs. .rencia *milGchanrobles virtual law library ! @yon lang pong isang tao ang a6ing 6ilala na &umaan &oon sa bahay nina "rs. .rencia *mil na si +enny ,apitan na ang tirahan po ay &oon po rin sa !itio Taba6, Brgy. !an Rafael, R7R, pero iyon pong isa na 6asama ni +enny ,apitan ay hin&i 6o po 6ilala sa 6anyang tunay na pangalan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library T @lan bang tao ang iyong na6ita na nagpunta &oon sa bahay ni "rs. .rencia *milGchanrobles virtual law library ! Dalawang tao po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library T "ayroon 6a ba gaano 6alayo &oon sa &alawang tao na ang isa ay si+enny ,apitan ng sila ay ma6ita mo na pumunta &oon sa bahay ni "rs. .rencia *milGchanrobles virtual law library

! "ayroon po lamang na mga 1- metro ang a6ing layo sa 6anila.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library T "atapos na ma6ita mo si na si +enny ,apitan at iyong isa niyang 6asama ay pumaso6 &oon sa bahay, ano pa ang suno& na pangyayariGchanrobles virtual law library ! *6in pong na6ita na matapos na sila ay ma6apaso6 sa loob ng bahay ni "rs. *mil ay 6anila pong isinara iyong pintuan noong bahay, at hin&i 6o po naman sila pinansin at a6o po ay nagpatuloy na sa a6ing pupuntahan. ??? ??? ??? T "atapos na ma6apaso6 iyong sina +enny ,apitan &oon sa bahay,wala 'a ba na&an* narini* na si*aw n* isan* bataGchanrobles virtual law library ! -ayroon po pero hindi 'o po pinansin. (:mphasis supplie&#. ??? ??? ???chanrobles virtual law library The testimonies of these two witnesses, evaluate& together, on what transpire& in the morning of "ay 14, 1234, between the hours of 3)--'2)-- a.m. attest to the e?istence of the following facts)chanrobles virtual law library 1. That the victim, Rolan&o *mil, was alive when her mother left her as testifie& to by .rencia *mil an& witness Celo =ilo, who cry out when the two suspects entere& the house. (Testimony of .rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library 8. That the accuse& Bene&icto Dapitan an& an uni&entifie& companion entere& the house at a time when "rs. *mil ha& alrea&y left, an& that the victim, at the time, was still alive. (Testimonies of Celo =ilo H .rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library ,. That when "rs. *mil returne& at Auarter to nine she saw Bene&icto Dapitan an& /re& &e 0uzman leaving the premises.(Testimony of .rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library $. *n& that when "rs. *mil entere& her house, the victim, Rolan&o *mil, was alrea&y &ea&. (Testimony of .rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library *s gleane& from the recor&s, witness .rencia *mil was straightforwar& in her testimony. !he remaine& stea&fast even on cross'e?amination, an& there is nothing on recor& concerning her testimony which woul& leave the court in &oubt as to the truth of what she testifie& to. (er testimony therefore, relative to the circumstances transpiring at the time she left the house at 3),a.m. up to the time she returne& at Auarter to nine engen&ers belief.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library Celo =ilo9s testimony was li6ewise ma&e in the same vein as that of .rencia *mil. This witness was not shown to have cause to per5ure himself on a serious crime against the accuse&. *s the

Court observe& &uring the trial, his testimony, base& on his &emeanor when he testifie&, is impresse& with a ring of veracity.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library The Court &i& not give cre&it to the testimony of +atrolman Ro&olfo Rivera e?cept on the fact that he con&ucte& an investigation. =o value whatsoever was given to the sworn statement of Bene&icto Dapitan, even as to the portion in sai& testimony, where Bene&icto Dapitan a&mitte& being present when /re& &e 0uzman allege&ly hit the victim on the hea& an& that the stolen articles were in the possession of /re& &e 0uzman, because as wisely put by &efense counsel, the sworn statement was ta6en in violation of the constitutional rights of the accuse&.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library @n sum, therefore, there can be no other inference from the evi&ence presente& by the prosecution consi&ering the short span of time the victim Rolan&o *mil was left alive by his mother, an& her return fifteen (1 # minutes later to fin& him &ea& an& the testimony that the accuse& was seen entering an& leaving the premises &uring this intervening perio&, e?cept the inevitable conclusion that the accuse& is responsible for the &eath of Rolan&o *mil.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library /or his part, the accuse& Bene&icto Dapitan interposes the &efense of BalibiB. This, he sought to establish through the testimony of witness @smael *nacio. +ertinent portion of the witness9 testimony, is herein Auote&, to wit) ??? ??? ??? I =ow, &o you remember, "r. <itness, if this Bene&icto Dapitan was present in the sai& house on the perio& from "ay 14 to "ay 12, 1234Gchanrobles virtual law library * (e was there, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library I <as there any occasion when this Bene&icto Dapitan left your house &uring that perio&G chanrobles virtual law library * =one, sir. (T!=, pages ,' , hearing of !eptember 18, 1233#.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library The testimony of witness @smael *nacio, a salesman by occupation, that &efen&ant Bene&icto Dapitan, from "ay 14 to "ay 12, 1234, was in his house all the time, an& that there was no occasion that he left the place &uring this perio& &oes not spar6 belief. @n the first place, the witness wants the Court to believe that he was in his house &uring all the time so that he coul& &uring all the &ays allu&e& to, be in a position to be positive as to the whereabouts of the accuse&. This circumstance alone generates &oubt on his testimony, because it was not e?plaine& why the witness, a salesman by occupation, woul& be in his house from the perio& beginning "ay 14'12, 1234 (T!=, pages 8',, hearing of !eptember 18, 1233#.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

*ssuming though, for the sa6e of argument, that the witness actually monitore& the whereabouts of the accuse& &uring all the time, his testimony sustaining Bene&icto Dapitan9s &efense of BalibiB cannot &efeat the positive i&entification ma&e of Bene&icto Dapitan an& of his presence in "ontalban on "ay 14, 1234, by witness .rencia *mil an& Celo =ilo. :ven on this score alone, without ta6ing into consi&eration that !ampaloc District where he allege&ly was, is geographically not so far from "ontalban, from where he coul& have commute& through the or&inary means of transportation present in the area, his &efense of BalibiB naturally falls, so that his conviction is reasonably calle& for. 14chanrobles virtual law library @n support of the assigne& error accuse&'appellant argues that the imposition over him of the penalty of reclusion te&poral by the trial court is Btantamount to &eprivation of life or liberty without &ue process of law or is tantamount to a cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman punishment prohibite& by the ConstitutionB an& he submits that Bthe righteous an& humane punishment that shoul& have been mete& out shoul& be in&eterminate sentenceB with Ball mitigating circumstances as well as the legal provisions favorable to the accuse&'appellant . . . appreciate& or . . . ta6en a&vantage for constructive an& humanitarian reasons.B (e stresses that since mitigating circumstances are base& on, among others, the lesser perversity of the offen&er, such shoul& be appreciate& in his favor since he ha& Ba companion then when he entere& "rs. .rencia *mil9s house an& perpetrate& the offense. 15 *n& it was his companion or mate by the name of /re& &e 0uzman who too6 the personal belongings of "rs. *mil as the men9s watch worth +1,133.--. @t was /re& &e 0uzman who is still at large who stabbe& an& hit the hea& of Rolan&o *mil. 16These facts or circumstances reveal that accuse&'appellant ha& a Blesser perversity than his companion /re& &e 0uzman.B *s evi&ence of such lesser perversity, Bhe &i& not flee or hi&e himself from the authorities. . . . within two (8# &ays9 time he surren&ere& voluntarily to the police authorities . . . .B Thus, the Bmitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender &ust be consideredB in his favor. 15chanrobles virtual law library (e prays that he be sentence& to an in&eterminate penalty ranging from twelve (18# years an& one (1# &ay of reclusion te&poral, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua as ma?imum. 16chanrobles virtual law library "eeting sAuarely the points raise& by the accuse&'appellant, the +eople, in the Brief for +lantiff' *ppellee submitte& by the !olicitor 0eneral on 2 %une 122-, asserts that the same are without merit for the accuse& was not &eprive& of &ue process as he was, as a&mitte& by him, affor&e& full opportunity to be hear&; for a penalty to be cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman, Bit must ta6e more than merely being harsh, e?cessive, out of proportion, or severe. . . . ; it must be flagrantly an& plainly oppressive, &isproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shoc6 the moral sense of the community 19 or when they involve torture or lingering &eathB 20an& since the penalty ofreclusion perpetua impose& on him is sanctione& by law, *ct =o. ,31 as amen&e&, otherwise 6nown as the Revise& +enal Co&e, sai& penalty is not cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman. @t further argues that the special comple? crime of robbery with homici&e &efine& un&er *rticle 82$, par. 1, of the Revise& +enal Co&e is punishable with reclusion perpetua to &eath; with the abolition of the &eath penalty by the 1237 Constitution, the only penalty imposable upon a person foun& to have committe& such comple? crime is the single penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is an in&ivisible penalty. Cn&er *rticle 4, of the Revise& +enal Co&e it shoul& be applie& regar&less

of the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library *s regar&s the @n&eterminate !entence >aw, the +eople submits that the accuse&'appellant cannot avail of it since !ection 8 of the law (*ct =o. $1-,# specifically provi&es that it shall not apply to, among others, persons convicte& of offenses punishe& with &eath penalty or life imprisonment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library <e fin& the instant appeal to be totally bereft of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library There was no &enial of &ue process.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library Due process is satisfie& if the following con&itions are present) (1# there must be a court or tribunal clothe& with 5u&icial power to hear an& &etermine the matter before it; (8# 5uris&iction must be lawfully acAuire& by it over the person of the &efen&ant or over the property which is the sub5ect of the procee&ing; (,# the &efen&ant must be given an opportunity to be hear&; an& ($# 5u&gment must be ren&ere& upon lawful hearing. 21chanrobles virtual law library @n People vs. astillo, et al., 22 <e rule& that if an accuse& has been hear& in a court of competent 5uris&iction, an& procee&e& against un&er the or&erly processes of law, an& only punishe& after inAuiry an& investigation, upon notice to him, with opportunity to be hear&, an& a 5u&gment awar&e& within the authority of the constitutional law, then he has ha& &ue process . 23chanrobles virtual law library <e reiterate& the above &octrine in People vs. -uit. 24chanrobles virtual law library *ll the reAuisites or con&itions of &ue process are present in this case. The recor&s further &isclose that accuse&'appellant was given the fullest an& unhampere& opportunity not only to reflect &ispassionately on his e?presse& &esire to plea& guilty to a lesser offense which prompte& the court to cancel the hearing of 1- /ebruary 1237, but also to confront the witnesses presente& against him an& to present his own evi&ence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library @f in&ee& accuse&'appellant ha& been &eprive& of &ue process, he woul& have faulte& the trial court not 5ust for failure to apply the @n&eterminate !entence >aw, but &efinitely for more. Det, he foun& it futile to go any farther.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library =either is the penalty of reclusion perpetua cruel, &egra&ing, an& inhuman. To ma6e that claim is to assail the constitutionality of *rticle 82$, par. 1 of the Revise& +enal Co&e, or of any other provisions therein an& of special laws imposing the sai& penalty for specific crimes or offenses. The proposition cannot fin& any support. *rticle 82$, par. 1 of the Revise& +enal Co&e has survive& four Constitutions of the +hilippines, namely) the 12, Constitution, the 127, Constitution, the /ree&om Constitution of 1234 an& the 1237 Constitution. *ll of these &ocuments mention life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua as a penalty which may be impose& in appropriate cases. 25 *s a matter of fact, the same paragraph of the section of *rticle @@@ (Bill

of Rights# of the 1237 Constitution which prohibits the imposition of cruel, &egra&ing an& inhuman punishment e?pressly recognizes reclusion perpetua. Thus) !ec. 12(l#. :?cessive fines shall not be impose&, nor cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman punishment inflicte&. =either shall the &eath penalty be impose&, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provi&es it. *ny &eath penalty alrea&y impose& shall be re&uce& toreclusion perpetua. *s to the appreciation of mitigating circumstances, <e also agree with the !olicitor 0eneral that since robbery with homici&e un&er paragraph 1 of *rticle 82$ of the Revise& +enal Co&e is now punishable by the single an& in&ivisible penalty of reclusion perpetuain view of the abolition of the &eath penalty, it follows that the rule prescribe& in the first paragraph of *rticle 4, of the Revise& +enal Co&e shall apply. 26ConseAuently,reclusion perpetua must be impose& in this case regar&less of the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library The trial court correctly impose& on the accuse& the penalty of reclusion perpetua.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library The civil in&emnity awar&e& by the trial court shoul&, in line with .ur &ecision in People vs. Sison, 0.R. =o. 34$ , 1$ !eptember 122-, an& People vs. Sa.on, 0.R. =o. 3243$, 13 !eptember 127-, be increase& from +,-,---.-- to + -,---.--.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library <(:R:/.R:, e?cept as mo&ifie& above in respect to the civil in&emnity, the &ecision appeale& from is *//@R":D in toto, with costs against accuse&' appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library !. .RD:R:D.