G.R. No. 171735 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALEJO OBLIGADO Y MAGDARAOG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding [appellant] ALEJO OBLIGADO y MAGDARAOG guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt as defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay indemnity in the amount of P50,000; actual damages of P27,000; moral and exemplary damages of P50,000 and to pay the cost of suit. On intermediate appellate review, [5] the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the guilt of the appellant but modified the civil liabilities imposed by the RTC. Because SPO4 Sarto testified that appellant intimated a desire to surrender, the appellate court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Thus, it deleted the award of exemplary damages and instead ordered appellant to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000. [6] We affirm appellant's guilt. The evidence of the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill (and in fact killed) the victim and that he consciously adopted a design which deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, or to retaliate. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should not have been considered. For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the defense must prove that: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; (c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary. [7] In this case, SPO4 Sarto testified that appellant's residence could be accessed only through a footpath where they met appellant. Inasmuch as he was intercepted by the arresting officers there, appellant had no means of evading arrest. His surrender therefore was neither voluntary nor spontaneous. On the contrary, the aforementioned circumstances revealed that he had no option but to yield to the authorities. With respect to the award of damages, to conform with recent jurisprudence, the appellant is ordered to pay P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto . [8] Both the RTC and CA did not award indemnity for loss of earning capacity despite the testimony of the victim's widow that he earned P5,000 per month as a driver. Such indemnity is not awarded in the absence of documentary evidence except where the victim was either self-employed or was a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. [9] Since it was neither alleged nor proved that the victim was either self-employed or was a daily wage worker, indemnity for loss of earning cannot be awarded to the heirs of the victim. Settled is the rule that only receipted expenses can be the basis of actual damages arising from funeral expenditures. [10] All the prosecution presented was a receipt from the funeral parlor amounting to P15,000. Since the receipted expenses of the victim's family was less than P25,000, temperate damages in the said amount can be awarded in lieu of actual damages. [11] Accordingly, the heirs of the victim are not