FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135701. May 9, 2002.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plainti-appellee, vs. ELBERT
CALLET y SABANAL, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Enrique S. Empleo for accused-appellant.
SYNOPSIS
For stabbing Alfredo Senador from behind, done in a sudden and unexpected
manner while the latter was sitting close to the ground and while his attention was
focused on the ongoing cara y cruz game, Elbert Callet was convicted of the crime of
murder and sentenced to suer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In this appeal,
Callet reiterated his self-defense theory.
DTISaH

The Court ruled that the version of the appellant did not inspire belief. The incident
happened in plain view of many witnesses at the ea market. Appellant claimed he
was with a certain Guale and one Sonny Boy at that time. Yet, nobody corroborated
his story. Indeed, his narration on how the victim "attacked" him was improbable.
In the witness chair, he admitted that the victim was bigger than him and that his
left hand was restrained by the victim. It was thus incredible how he could pull out
his knife from his right side, with the use of his left hand, raised that knife high
enough to hit the shoulder of the victim and inicted an 11-cm. deep wound upon
him. Equally incredulous was the claim that after being injured, the victim still tried
to approach and attack him, hence, he had to retreat. The accused's uncorroborated
plea of self-defense cannot be entertained, especially when it was, in itself,
extremely doubtful. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court was affirmed.
SYLLABUS
1.
REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; NOT IMPAIRED BY
BLOOD RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WITNESS AND THE VICTIM; CASE AT BAR.
The fact that Lecpoy is a son of the victim would not necessarily make him
untrustworthy. This Court has ruled that "(b)lood relationship between a witness
and the victim does not by itself impair the credibility of witnesses. On the contrary,
relationship may strengthen credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative
to falsely accuse someone other than the real culprit. The earnest desire to seek
justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and
prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime." Signicantly, there is no
showing that this young eyewitness has any ill motive to testify falsely against the
accused.

2.
ID.; ID.; ADMISSIBILITY; DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; AFFIANT SHOULD NOT
BE BOUND BY THE CHANGES IN THE AFFIDAVIT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR
PROOF THAT HE CONFIRMED IT. [W]e note that Lecpoy and Eduardo did not
countersign the superimposition in the subject adavit. In the absence of clear
proof that they confirmed the change, they should not be bound by it.
3.
CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; ELEMENTS.
In self-defense, the burden of proof rests upon the accused. Thus, he must
present clear and convincing evidence that the following elements are present, to
wit: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sucient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
IEaCDH

4.
ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED WHEN IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL.
The incident happened in plain view of many witnesses at the ea market. He
even claimed he was with a certain Guale and one Sonny Boy at that time. Yet,
nobody corroborated his story. Indeed, his narration on how the victim "attacked"
him is improbable. In the witness chair, he admitted that the victim was bigger than
him and that his left hand was restrained by the victim. It is thus incredible how he
could pull out his knife from his right side, with the use of his left hand, raise that
knife high enough to hit the shoulder of the victim and inict an 11-cm. deep
wound upon him. It is more probable that the victim was sitting down when the
accused attacked him from behind as the prosecution witnesses testied. Equally
incredulous is the claim that after being injured, the victim still tried to approach
and attack him, hence, he had to retreat. The accused's uncorroborated plea of selfdefense cannot be entertained, especially when it is, in itself, extremely doubtful.
5.
ID.; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; NOT
ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. The evidence failed to prove evident
premeditation. Evident premeditation requires proof of: (1) the time when the
accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he
has clung to his determination; and (3) sucient lapse of time between the decision
and the execution to allow the accused to reect upon the consequences of his act.
The records show that the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove these
elements.
6.
ID.; ID.; TREACHERY; ELUCIDATED. Treachery or alevosia exists when the
oender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
7.
ID.; ID.; ID.; STABBING FROM BEHIND, DONE IN A SUDDEN AND
UNEXPECTED MANNER, PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. The trial court correctly held
that treachery qualied the killing of the victim to murder. The stabbing was from
behind, done in a sudden and unexpected manner while the victim was sitting close
to the ground, with his buttocks resting on his right foot, and while his attention
was focused on the on-going cara y cruz game. Clearly, the victim was not able to

defend himself from the mode of attack.

DSTCIa

8.
ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; PRESENT IN
CASE AT BAR. The trial court also correctly credited the accused with voluntary
surrender to mitigate his liability. Voluntary surrender requires that the oender
had not been actually arrested; that he surrendered himself to a person in authority
or to the latter's agent; and that the surrender was voluntary. The records reveal
that the accused ran toward the municipal building after the stabbing incident. On
his way to the municipal building, he admitted to Barangay Tanods Nilo Callet and
Jesus Dagodog that he stabbed the victim. Although he did not immediately turn
over his weapon to them for fear of retaliation from the victim's relatives, he did so
as soon as they reached the municipal building. Undoubtedly, the conduct he
displayed was spontaneous as it shows his interest to give himself up
unconditionally to the authorities, thus saving the State the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
9.
ID.; ID.; ID.; NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG; NOT
ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. The accused also claims that his liability should
be mitigated by the fact that he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong. We
are not persuaded. The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so grave is an internal
state. It is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the
injury inicted and the manner it is inicted. The fact that the accused used a 9-inch
hunting knife in attacking the victim from behind, without giving him an
opportunity to defend himself, clearly shows that he intended to do what he
actually did, and he must be held responsible therefor, without the benet of this
mitigating circumstance.
aHTCIc

10.
ID.; MURDER; PROPER PENALTY. As the killing was attended by treachery,
the accused is liable for the crime of murder. The prescribed penalty therefor is
reclusion perpetua to death. In view of the presence of the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender, the trial court correctly meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua against the accused.
11.
ID.; ID.; CIVIL LIABILITY; P50,000.00 AS CIVIL INDEMNITY. The civil
indemnity awarded in favor of the legal heirs of the victim, Alfredo Senador, in the
amount of P50,000.00 is in accord with the Court's current policy.
DECISION
PUNO, J :
p

The accused, ELBERT CALLET y SABANAL was charged with Murder before the
Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City, Branch 30. The crime was
allegedly committed as follows: 1
TCS E cI

"That on or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September 15, 1996, at

Barangay Tambulan, Tayasan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to
kill, evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one ALFREDO SENADOR
with the use of a knife with which the said accused was then armed and
provided, thereby inflicting upon said victim the following injury, to wit:
A stab wound measuring two (2) cm. in length, 0.3 cm. in width and
eleven (11) cm. in deepness located at the left side of the trunk, about
two (2) cm. above the left clavicular bone. The wound was directed
downward and slightly to the right.
which injury or wound caused the death of said ALFREDO SENADOR shortly
thereafter.
Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code."

When arraigned on June 11, 1997, the accused pled "not guilty."

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Dr. Rogelio Kho, Lecpoy Senador,
Eduardo Perater, Manuel Gabonales and Francisca Senador. For the defense, the
accused, Elbert Callet, PO3 Roy Balasabas, Barangay Captain Dominador Calijan and
Nilo Callet testified.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on September 15, 1996, at 5:00 p.m.,
the victim, Alfredo Senador, his 12-year old son, Lecpoy Senador, and Eduardo
Perater were at the ea market of barangay Tambulan, Tayasan, Negros Oriental.
There were many people in the vicinity. Some were playing cara y cruz while others
were playing volleyball.
Alfredo, Lecpoy and Eduardo were beside each other as they watched a cara y cruz
game. Alfredo sat close to the ground, with his buttocks resting on his right foot.
Lecpoy and Eduardo sat on a piece of wood and on a stone, respectively.

Out of nowhere, the accused, Elbert Callet, appeared behind Alfredo and stabbed the
latter on the left shoulder near the base of the neck with a 9-inch hunting knife.
Instinctively, Alfredo stood up and managed to walk a few meters. When he fell on
the ground, Lecpoy and Eduardo rushed to help him but to no avail. Alfredo died
shortly thereafter.
Manuel Gabonales was also at the ea market at that time. At 5:00 p.m., he saw
people running away from the place where there was a cara y cruz game. Next, he
saw Alfredo and the accused. Alfredo was soaked in blood while the accused was
running towards the basketball court. He asked Alfredo what happened to him.
Alfredo replied that the accused stabbed him. The accused was then standing at the
basketball court. Manuel helped Lecpoy and Eduardo carry Alfredo under a mango
tree. He thought of bringing Alfredo to the hospital when he saw blood oozing from
his mouth. After a moment, Alfredo died.

Dr. Rogelio Kho, Municipal Health Ocer at Tayasan, autopsied the body of Alfredo
on September 16, 1996. The doctor found a stab wound on the left shoulder of
Alfredo, near the base of the neck. He opined that the victim died due to "severe
hemorrhage and irreversible shock due to stab wound." 3
The defense gave a different account of the stabbing incident.
Allegedly, at 3:00 p.m., the accused, Elbert Callet, played volleyball near the ea
market. After two (2) games, he stopped playing. It was past 4:00 p.m. He stayed at
the ea market and watched as others played volleyball. While watching the game,
he was hit on the left side of the body by Alfredo's elbow. He asked Alfredo why he
hit him. Alfredo retorted, "Are you angry?" Next Alfredo grabbed his left arm and
tried to twist it. He pleaded with Alfredo to let go of his arm, but Alfredo warned
that he would be his third victim if he would get angry with him. As Alfredo was
pulling out a hunting knife from his waist, he (the accused) managed to stab him
first. Thereafter, he ran towards the municipal hall to surrender.
Dominador Calijan, the Barangay Captain of Tayasan, happened to be at the
basketball court near the scene of the crime. He encountered Alfredo along the road
after the stabbing incident. Alfredo had a stab wound on the lower nape. Calijan
asked Alfredo who stabbed him and the latter gave the name of the accused. He
directed his barangay tanods to arrest the accused.

Barangay tanods Nilo Callet and Jesus Dagodog were able to catch up with the
accused three (3) kilometers away from the scene of the crime. He was still holding
the hunting knife and refused to surrender it for fear that the relatives of Alfredo
would retaliate. The barangay tanods escorted him to the municipal hall. Along the
way, they asked him why he stabbed Alfredo. The accused replied that he could not
help it and that everything happened too fast. Upon reaching the municipal hall, the
accused surrendered the hunting knife. He was turned over to PO Roy Balasbas for
investigation.
After the trial, the accused was found guilty of murder. The fallo of the trial court's
decision 4 states:
"WHEREFORE, nding the accused ELBERT CALLET Y SABANAL guilty
beyond a scintilla of doubt for the crime of MURDER penalized under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, taking into account the mitigating
circumstance and voluntary surrender without any aggravating
circumstance, the accused is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA
with all the accessory penalties provided under Article 41 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Accused is ordered to pay the legal heirs of Alfredo Senador the sum of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity for his death.
Costs against the accused."
Hence, the appeal. The accused contends that: 5

"1.
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED KILLED THE
VICTIM WITH TREACHERY;
2.
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED FAILED TO
PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE;
3.
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
FAILING TO CONSIDER THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE
ACCUSED DID NOT INTEND TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG."

We affirm. The conviction of the accused is clearly supported by the evidence.

Two (2) eyewitnesses positively identified the accused, Elbert Callet, as the one who
fatally stabbed the victim, Alfredo Senador. Eyewitness Lecpoy Senador testied as
follows: 6
"(PROS. HERMOSA):
Q:

About that time 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon on September 15, 1996,
where were you and your companions situated or stationed since you
said you were particularly at the flea market?
xxx xxx xxx

A:

We were in Tambulan.

Q:

In what particular place were you at the flea market?

A:

In the place where there was a "cara y cruz ".

xxx xxx xxx

Q:

What were you and your father as well as Eduardo Perater doing at
that moment at 5:00 o'clock on September 15 at the place where
there was a game of "cara y cruz "?

A:

We were looking at the "cara y cruz ".

Q:

While you were looking at the "cara y cruz " game, do you recall if
there was an unusual incident that happened?

A:

Yes, there was.

Q:

What was this unusual incident that happened?

A:

My father was stabbed.

Q:

Who stabbed your father?

A:

Elbert Callet.

Q:

Elbert Callet whom you just identified a while ago?

A:

Yes.
xxx xxx xxx

Q:

Where was Elbert Callet in relation to your father when he stabbed

your father?
IaAEHD

A:

At the back of my father.

Q:

What was the position of your father when he was stabbed by the
accused?

A:

He was sitting.

Q:

Where was your father hit if you know?

A:

Left shoulder.

Q:

What happened after Elbert Callet stabbed your father?

A:

My father walked.

Q:

Towards what place?

A:

Towards the area where there was a volleyball game.

Q:

And what eventually happened to him?

A:

He fell down.

Q:

And then, what happened after he fell down?

A:

We carried him to a place where there was a mango tree.

xxx xxx xxx

Q:

What happened or what transpired after you brought your father

towards the mango tree?

A:

My father died.

Q:

After stabbing your father, what did Elbert Callet do if he did

anything?

A:

He ran away.

Q:

What did he use in stabbing your father?

A:

Hunting knife."

(Italics ours)

Another eyewitness, Eduardo Perater, testified as follows:

"(PROS. HERMOSA):
Q:

All right, at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, can you
recall if there was an unusual incident that happened?

A:

Yes, there was.

Q:

What was that unusual incident?

A:

There was a stabbing incident.

Q:

Who was stabbed?

A:

Alfredo Senador.

Q:

Who stabbed Alfredo Senador?

A:

Elbert Callet.

Q:

The same Elbert Callet whom you just identied a while ago in the
courtroom?

A:

Yes.

Q:

What was the position of Alfredo Senador when he was stabbed by

Elbert Callet?

A:

He was sitting down.

Q:

Will you please demonstrate to us the manner how Alfredo Senador

was sitting down at the time when he was stabbed by the accused in
this case?

A:

(Witness in squatting position, he was sitting with his buttock on his

right foot).
xxx xxx xxx

Q:

Where was Elbert Callet situated when he stabbed Alfredo Senador?

A:

At the back of Alfredo Senador.

Q:

Was there any argument between Alfredo Senador and Elbert Callet
before Alfredo Senador was stabbed?

A:

There was none.

xxx xxx xxx

Q:

How many times did Elbert Callet stab Alfredo Senador?

A:

Only one (1).

Q:

Was Alfredo hit when he was stabbed by Elbert Callet?

A:

Yes.

Q:

In what part of the body of Alfredo Senador was hit?

A:

In the left shoulder.

SHADEC

xxx xxx xxx

Q:

What happened after Alfredo Senador was hit by the stabbing of

Elbert Callet?

A:

He stood up.

Q:

What did Elbert Callet use in stabbing Alfredo Senador?

A:

A hunting knife.
xxx xxx xxx

Q:

What about Elbert Callet, what did he do after stabbing Alfredo

Senador?

A:

He ran away.

Q:

What did he do with his knife which he used in stabbing Alfredo

Senador?

A:

He carried it with him."

(Italics ours)
We give full faith and credit to the testimonies of Lecpoy and Eduardo. Their
testimonies were vivid with details. They were clear and consistent with each other.
The accused laments that Lecpoy Senador is a biased witness, being a son of the
victim. We are not convinced.
The fact that Lecpoy is a son of the victim would not necessarily make him
untrustworthy. This Court has ruled that "(b)lood relationship between a witness
and the victim does not by itself impair the credibility of witnesses. On the contrary,
relationship may strengthen credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative
to falsely accuse someone other than the real culprit. The earnest desire to seek
justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and
prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime." 8 Signicantly, there is no
showing that this young eyewitness has any ill motive to testify falsely against the
accused.
To be sure, even without the testimony of Lecpoy, the testimonies of Eduardo

Perater and Manuel Gabonales would suce to convict the accused. They are
disinterested witnesses. 9 Their identication of the accused as the assailant is
beyond question.
Still assailing the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the accused points out that in the
joint adavit 10 of Lecpoy and Eduardo, it was stated that the victim was "standing
with his back facing Elbert Callet." However, they contradicted their adavit when
they testied at the trial that the victim was "sitting, with his buttocks resting on
his right foot."
The cited inconsistency will not exculpate the accused. We quote with approval the
following observations of the trial court: 11

". . . In the instant case, the direct and candid testimonies of eyewitnesses
Lecpoy Senador and Eduardo Perater clearly showed that the killing of
Alfredo Senador was attended by treachery. Alfredo Senador was sitting
with his buttocks on his right foot watching the game of "cara y cruz" when
Elbert Callet who was at the back of the victim stabbed him using a nine (9)
inch hunting knife hitting him near the base of his neck. The victim . . . was
not in a position to defend himself from the accused who deliberately and
consciously positioned himself at the back of the unsuspecting victim to
ensure the accomplishment of his evil desire without risk to himself. The
location of the stab wound at the left side of the trunk about two (2)
centimeters from the base of the neck and four (4) centimeters above the
left clavicular bone with a deepness of eleven (11) centimeters directed
downward and slightly to the right also suggests that the accused
deliberately and consciously selected that part of the human body to ensure
the instantaneous death of the victim. Although the counsel of the accused
tried to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses by pointing
that in their joint adavit dated 20 September 1996 Lecpoy Senador and
Eduardo Perater stated that Alfredo Senador was "standing" when he was
stabbed, the said discrepancy could not in any way aect the categorical,
candid, consistent and straightforward declaration of the said eyewitnesses
made in open court that Alfredo Senador was sitting when he was stabbed
by the accused. Discrepancies between sworn statements or adavits and
testimonies made at the witness stand do not necessarily discredit the
witnesses (People vs. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19) . This is because it is a matter of
judicial experience that an adavit being taken ex parte is almost always
incomplete and often inaccurate (People vs. Castillo , 261 SCRA 493).
Moreover, as noted by this Court the word "standing" was superimposed
after the original typewritten word was erased using a snopic (sic) or white
substance." (Italics ours)
AcHEaS

In addition, we note that Lecpoy and Eduardo did not countersign the
superimposition in the subject adavit. In the absence of clear proof that they
confirmed the change, they should not be bound by it.
The accused invokes self-defense for his acquittal. In self-defense, the burden of

proof rests upon the accused. Thus, he must present clear and convincing evidence
that the following elements are present, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of
sucient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 12 The accused
failed to discharge this task.
The accused alleged that he and the victim had hunting knives during their
encounter. After the victim's elbow hit the left side of his body, the victim grabbed
his left arm and tried to twist it with his right arm. A verbal exchange ensued
between them and then the victim, using the left arm tried to unsheathe the knife
that was tucked at his left side. However, the victim was not able to pull out the
knife because it got entangled with his shirt tucked in his pants. In defense, the
accused allegedly pulled out his own knife that was tucked in the right side of his
waist using his left arm and stabbed the victim on the left shoulder. He then
retreated and left as the victim was still trying to approach him. 13
The version of the accused does not inspire belief. The incident happened in plain
view of many witnesses at the ea market. He even claimed he was with a certain
Guale and one Sonny Boy at that time. 14 Yet, nobody corroborated his story.
Indeed, his narration on how the victim "attacked" him is improbable. In the
witness chair, he admitted that the victim was bigger than him and that his left
hand was restrained by the victim. 15 It is thus incredible how he could pull out his
knife from his right side, with the use of his left hand, 16 raise that knife high
enough to hit the shoulder of the victim and inict an 11-cm. deep wound upon
him. It is more probable that the victim was sitting down when the accused
attacked him from behind as the prosecution witnesses testied. Equally
incredulous is the claim that after being injured, the victim still tried to approach
and attack him, hence, he had to retreat. The accused's uncorroborated plea of selfdefense cannot be entertained, especially when it is, in itself, extremely doubtful. 17
The Information charged that evident premeditation and treachery attended the
commission of the crime. The evidence failed to prove evident premeditation.
Evident premeditation requires proof of: (1) the time when the accused decided to
commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination; and (3) sucient lapse of time between the decision and the
execution to allow the accused to reect upon the consequences of his act. 18 The
records show that the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove these
elements.
Treachery or alevosia exists when the oender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. 19
The trial court correctly held that treachery qualied the killing of the victim to
murder. The stabbing was from behind, done in a sudden and unexpected manner
while the victim was sitting close to the ground, with his buttocks resting on his
right foot, and while his attention was focused on the on-going cara y cruz game. 20

Clearly, the victim was not able to defend himself from the mode of attack.
The trial court also correctly credited the accused with voluntary surrender to
mitigate his liability. Voluntary surrender requires that the oender had not been
actually arrested; that he surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the
latter's agent; and that the surrender was voluntary.
The records reveal that the accused ran toward the municipal building after the
stabbing incident. On his way to the municipal building, he admitted to Barangay
Tanods Nilo Callet and Jesus Dagodog that he stabbed the victim. Although he did
not immediately turn over his weapon to them for fear of retaliation from the
victim's relatives, he did so as soon as they reached the municipal building.
Undoubtedly, the conduct he displayed was spontaneous as it shows his interest to
give himself up unconditionally to the authorities, thus saving the State the trouble
and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. 21
The accused also claims that his liability should be mitigated by the fact that he had
no intention to commit so grave a wrong. We are not persuaded.
The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed
based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inicted and the
manner it is inicted. The fact that the accused used a 9-inch hunting knife in
attacking the victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity to defend
himself, clearly shows that he intended to do what he actually did, and he must be
held responsible therefor, without the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. 22
As the killing was attended by treachery, the accused is liable for the crime of
murder. The prescribed penalty therefor is reclusion perpetua to death. 23 In view of
the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the trial court
correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua against the accused.
The civil indemnity awarded in favor of the legal heirs of the victim, Alfredo
Senador, in the amount of P50,000.00 is in accord with the Court's current policy.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from, nding the accused, ELBERT
CALLET, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in Criminal Case No. 12995, and
sentencing him to suer reclusion perpetua and to pay the legal heirs of the victim,
ALFREDO SENADOR, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and to pay the
costs, is AFFIRMED.
aTCADc

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J ., Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago and Austria-Martinez, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1.

Information, dated April 28, 1997, Original Records, p. 1.

2.

Certificate of Arraignment, Original Records, p. 26.

3.

Exh. "A", Original Records, p. 6.

4.

Rollo, pp. 50-60.

5.

Appellant's Brief, p. 6; Rollo, p. 43.

6.

TSN, Lecpoy Senador, June 25, 1997, pp. 3-5.

7.

TSN, Eduardo Perater, June 24, 1997, pp. 10-12.

8.

People vs. Realin, 301 SCRA 495 (1999).

9.

TSN, Elbert Callet, August 4, 1997, pp. 20-21.

10.

Original Records, p. 5.

11.

Rollo, pp. 23-24.

12.

Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code.

13.

TSN, Elbert Callet, August 4, 1997, pp. 23-30.

14.

Id., pp. 2, 19.

15.

Id., pp. 32-33.

16.

Id., p. 29.

17.

People vs. Palabrica, G.R. No. 129285, May 7, 2001.

18.

People vs. Panabang, G.R. Nos. 137514-15, January 16, 2002.

19.

Article 14 (16), Revised Penal Code.

20.

People vs. Delgado , 182 SCRA 343, 351 (1990); People vs. Melgar , 157 SCRA
718 (1988).

21.

People vs. Amazan, et al., G.R. No. 138606-07, January 16, 2001; People vs.
Lagrana, 147 SCRA 281, 285 (1987).

22.

People vs. Pajenado, 69 SCRA 172, 180 (1976).

23.

Article 248, Revised Penal Code.