8 Seguritan V People

4/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
In order to preserve the credit worthiness of checks,

jurisprudence has pronounced that crossing of a check
should have the following effects: (a) the check may not be
encashed but only deposited in the bank; (b) the check may
be negotiated only once—to one who has an account with a
bank [and]; (c) the act of crossing the checks serves as
warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a
definite purpose so that he must inquire if he has received
the check pursuant to that purpose, otherwise, he is not a
holder in due course. (Hi-Cement Corporation vs. Insular
Bank of Asia and America, 534 SCRA 269 [2007])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 172896. April 19, 2010.*
ROÑO SEGURITAN y JARA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Evidence; Courts will only consider as evidence that which has

been formally offered.—It is settled that courts will only consider
as evidence that which has been formally offered. The allegation
that the results of the autopsy are unworthy of credence was
based on a book that was neither marked for identification nor
formally offered in evidence during the hearing of the case. Thus,
the trial court as well as the appellate court correctly disregarded
them. The prosecution was not even given the opportunity to
object as the book or a portion thereof was never offered in
evidence.
Criminal Law; Homicide; When death resulted, even if there
was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical
injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal
law looks particularly to the material results following the
unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the
consequences thereof.—
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a17ca4e46bb8e70b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
407
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 407

Sugiratan vs. People
When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime
is homicide, not just physical injuries, since with respect to crimes
of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the
material results following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.
Same; Same; Penalties; Penalty for homicide under Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal the range of which
is from 12 years and one day to 20 years.—The penalty for
Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion
temporal the range of which is from 12 years and one day to 20
years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty
next lower in degree is prision mayor the range of which is from
six years and one day to 12 years. In this case, we find that the
mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed, attended the commission of the crime.
Same; Same; Damages; Temperate Damages; When pecuniary
loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of
the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be
recovered.—In lieu of actual damages, the heirs of the victim can
still be awarded temperate damages. When pecuniary loss has
been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case,
be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered.
Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the
nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party
suffered some pecuniary loss.
Same; Same; Same; Moral Damages; Moral damages was
correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the
death of the victim and that the accused was responsible therefor.
—Moral damages was correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim
without need of proof other than the fact that a crime was
committed resulting in the death of the victim and that the
accused was responsible therefor. The award of P50,000.00 as
moral damages conforms to existing jurisprudence.
408
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Bienvenido R. Miguel for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

In a criminal case, 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.1 It is only in exceptional circumstances,
such as when the trial court overlooked material and
relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and
evaluate the factual findings of the court below. In this
case, we hold that the trial court did not overlook such
factual matters; consequently, we find no necessity to
review, much less, overturn its factual findings.
This petition for review on certiorari assails the
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 24,
2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 25069 which affirmed with
modification the Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 06 in Criminal Case No.
VI-892 finding petitioner Roño Seguritan y Jara guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Likewise
impugned is the Resolution4 dated May 23, 2006 which
denied the Motion for Reconsideration.5
_______________
1 People v. Narca, 341 Phil. 713-714; 275 SCRA 696, 714 (1997).
2 CA Rollo, pp. 155-164; penned by Associate Justice Santiago Javier
Ranada and concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and
Mario L. Guariña III.
3 Records, pp. 186-194; penned by Judge Rolando R. Velasco.
4 Rollo, p. 33.
5 CA Rollo, pp. 164-175.
409
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 409

Factual Antecedents
On October 1, 1996, petitioner was charged with
Homicide in an Information,6 the accusatory portion of
which reads as follows:
“That on or about November 25, 1995, in the municipality of

Gonzaga, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ROÑO SEGURITAN
y JARA alias Ranio, with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and box one
Lucrecio Seguritan, inflicting upon the latter head injuries which
caused his death.
Contrary to law.”
During the arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not

guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Version of the Prosecution
In the afternoon of November 25, 1995, petitioner was
having a drinking session with his uncles Lucrecio
Seguritan (Lucrecio), Melchor Panis (Melchor) and
Baltazar Panis (Baltazar), in the house of Manuel dela
Cruz in Barangay Paradise, Gonzaga, Cagayan. Petitioner,
who was seated beside Lucrecio, claimed that Lucrecio’s
carabao entered his farm and destroyed his crops. A heated
discussion thereafter ensued, during which petitioner
punched Lucrecio twice as the latter was about to stand up.
Petitioner’s punches landed on Lucrecio’s right and left
temple, causing him to fall face-up to the ground and hit a
hollow block which was being used as an improvised stove.
Lucrecio lost consciousness but was revived with the
assistance of Baltazar. Thereafter, Lucrecio rode a tricycle
and proceeded to his house in the neighboring barangay of
Calayan, Cagayan. Upon his arrival, his wife noticed blood
on
_______________
6 Records, p. 1.
410

his forehead. Lucrecio explained that he was stoned, then

went directly to his room and slept.
At around 9 o’clock in the evening, Lucrecio’s wife and
daughter noticed that his complexion has darkened and
foamy substance was coming out of his mouth. Attempts
were made to revive Lucrecio but to no avail. He died that
same night.
After the burial of Lucrecio on December 4, 1995, his
wife learned of petitioner’s involvement in her husband’s
death. Thus, she sought the assistance of the National

Bureau of Investigation (NBI). NBI Medico-Legal Officer
Dr. Antonio Vertido (Dr. Vertido) exhumed Lucrecio’s body
and performed the autopsy. Dr. Vertido found hematomas
in the scalp located in the right parietal and left occipital
areas, a linear fracture in the right middle fossa, and a
subdural hemorrhage in the right and left cerebral
hemisphere. Dr. Vertido concluded that Lucrecio’s cause of
death was traumatic head injury.7
On May 21, 1996, Melchor executed a sworn statement
before the Gonzaga Police Station recounting the events on
that fateful day, including the punching of Lucrecio by
petitioner.
At the time of Lucrecio’s death, he was 51 years old and
earned an annual income of P14,000.00 as a farmer.
The Version of the Defense
Petitioner denied hitting Lucrecio and alleged that the
latter died of cardiac arrest. Petitioner claimed that he
suddenly stood up during their heated argument with the
intent to punch Lucrecio. However, since the latter was
seated at the opposite end of the bench, Lucrecio lost his
balance and fell before he could be hit. Lucrecio’s head hit
the improvised stove as a result of which he lost
consciousness.
_______________
7 Id., at p. 121.
411
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 411

Petitioner presented Joel Cabebe, the Assistant

Registration Officer of Gonzaga, Cagayan, and Dr. Corazon
Flor, the Municipal Health Officer of Sta. Teresita,
Cagayan, to prove that Lucrecio died of a heart attack.
These witnesses identified the Certificate of Death of
Lucrecio and the entry therein which reads: “Antecedent
cause: T/C cardiovascular disease.”8
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On February 5, 2001, the trial court rendered a Decision
convicting petitioner of homicide. The dispositive portion of
the Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and sentences the
accused to an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day of

prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion
temporal as maximum. The accused is ordered to pay the heirs of
the late Lucrecio Seguritan the amount of P30,000.00 as actual
damages and the amount of P135,331.00 as loss of earning
capacity and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.”9
The Decision of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the
Judgment of the RTC.
Thus:
“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is partly

AFFIRMED, WITH MODIFICATION, to read as follows: The
Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide and sentences the accused to an indeterminate
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as
minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of
reclusion temporal, as maximum. The accused Roño Seguritan is
ordered to pay the heirs of
_______________
8 Id., at p. 133.
9 Id., at p. 194.
412

the late Lucrecio Seguritan the amount of P 30,000.00 as actual

damages, the amount of P135,331.00 as loss of earning capacity,
P 50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.”10
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was

denied by the CA in its Resolution dated May 23, 2006.
Issues
Thus, this petition for review raising the following

issues:
I
The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment
of conviction.
II
The Court of Appeals erred in convicting the accused of the crime

of homicide.11
Our Ruling
The petition is denied.

Petitioner disputes the conclusion that the fracture on
the right middle fossa of the skull, beneath the area where
a hematoma developed was due to the blow he delivered
because according to the testimony of Dr. Vertido, the
fracture may also be caused by one falling from a height.
Petitioner also maintains that the punches he threw at
Lucrecio had nothing to do with the fatal head injuries the
latter suffered. According to him, Lucrecio sustained the
head injuries when he accidentally hit the hollow block
that was used as an improvised stove, after falling from the
opposite end of the bench. Petitioner insists that Lucrecio
died due to a fatal heart attack.
_______________
10 CA Rollo, p. 163.

11 Rollo, p. 15.
413
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 413

In fine, petitioner contends that the appellate court, in

affirming the judgment of the trial court, overlooked
material and relevant factual matters which, if considered,
would change the outcome of the case.
We are not persuaded.
It is on record that Lucrecio suffered two external
injuries and one internal injury in his head. The autopsy
report showed that Lucrecio died of internal hemorrhage
caused by injuries located at the upper right portion of the
head, left side of the center of his head, and a “fracture,
linear, right middle fossa, hemorrhage, subdural, right and
left cerebral hemisphere.”
We find no reason to doubt the findings of the trial
court, as affirmed by the appellate court, that petitioner
punched Lucrecio twice causing him to fall to the ground.
Melchor categorically testified that petitioner punched
Lucrecio twice and as a result, Lucrecio fell to the ground
and lost consciousness. Melchor would not have testified
falsely against petitioner, who was his nephew. He even
hesitated to testify as shown by his execution of a sworn

statement just after the autopsy of Lucrecio which revealed
that the cause of death was traumatic head injury
attributed to petitioner.
Melchor’s eyewitness account of the fist blows delivered
by petitioner to Lucrecio and the manner by which the
latter fell from the bench and hit his head on the
improvised stove is consistent with the autopsy findings
prepared and testified to by Dr. Vertido. Thus:
xxxx
Court:
Q What is the right parietal area?
A This is the right parietal area, sir.
(Witness pointing to the upper right portion of the head).
And then the left occipital area, this is left occipital area with a
hematoma again measuring 5.0 x 4.0 centimeters, sir.
414

(Witness pointing to the back left part, middle back portion)12

xxxx
Fiscal Feril:
Q What about this which reads “Fracture, linear, right middle fossa”,
where is this injury located?
xxxx
Court:
Q Will you point that from your head?
A x x x [A]t the base of the brain of the skull, sir.
If you look at the head at the cut portion, the fracture is located on
the base of the brain, particularly on the right mid-cranial fossa,
sir.13
xxxx
Fiscal Feril:
Q Could it be possible that the victim suffered the injuries specifically
the fracture while he was falling to the ground, hitting solid objects
in the process?
A Well, with regard to the hematomas there is a possibility [that it
could be caused by] falling from a height x x x although it produces
hematoma, sir.
Court:
Q Falling from a height?
A Yes, sir.
Fiscal Feril:
Q If an external force is administered to such victim, such as x x x fist
blow[s] would it accelerate this force and cause these injuries?
A Definitely it could accelerate, sir.14
We find no merit in petitioner’s argument that he could

not be held liable for the head fracture suffered by
Lucrecio. The height from which he stood to deliver the fist
blows to Lucrecio’s head is sufficient to cause the fracture.
_______________
12 TSN, December 15, 1998, p. 32.

13 Id., at pp. 31-32.
14 Id., at pp. 37-38.
415
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 415

The testimony of Dr. Vertido also ruled out petitioner’s

contention that Lucrecio died of a heart attack. The fact
that Lucrecio’s cause of death is internal hemorrhage
resulting from the head injuries suffered during his
encounter with the petitioner and the certainty that he had
no heart problem are evident in the following portion of Dr.
Vertido’s testimony:
Atty. Antonio:
Q Did you notice anything unusual in the heart of Lucrecio Seguritan?
A Well, with regard to our examination of the heart Your Honor I limit
only the examination on the atomic portion, gross findings, when
we say gross findings that can be seen by the eyes and so if for
example other that the findings on the brain, if I have not seen my
injury from the brain then my next examination to contemplate
would be to bring a portion of each particular organ to Manila and
have it subjected to a hispathologic examination over the
microscope. But then we found out that there is an injury to the
brain so why should I now perform a hispathologic examination on
the heart, when in fact there is already a gross finding on the brain,
meaning that the cause of death now is of course, this traumatic
injury, sir.
Court:
Q Supposed the victim had a heart attack first and then fell down
later, can you determine then x x x the cause of death?
A Well, your Honor as I said a while ago I opened up the heart, I
examined the heart grossly and there was no findings that would
find to a heart attach on its function, the heart was okay and
coronaries were not thickened so I said well—grossly there was no
heart attack.15
xxxx
Court:
Q Since you were conducting just a cursory examination of the heart,

my question again is that, could you have determined by further
examination whether the victim suf-
_______________
15 TSN, December 15, 1998, pp. 41-42.
416

fered a heart attack before the injuries on the head were inflicted?
A That is why sir, I said, I examined the heart and I found out that
there was noting wrong with the heart, and why should I insist on
further examining the heart.16
The notation in the Certificate of Death of Lucrecio that

he died of a heart attack has no weight in evidence. Dr.
Corazon Flor, who signed said document testified that she
did not examine the cadaver of Lucrecio. She stated that a
circular governing her profession did not require her to
conduct an examination of Lucrecio’s corpse, as long as the
informant tells her that it is not a medico-legal case.
Renato Sidantes (Renato), the brother-in-law of Lucrecio
who applied for the latter’s death certificate, had no
knowledge of the real cause of his death. Thus, Dr. Flor
was mistakenly informed by Renato that the cause of
Lucrecio’s death was heart attack.
The petitioner belatedly contends that the delay in the
autopsy of Lucrecio’s body and its embalming compromised
the results thereof. To substantiate his claim, he quotes the
book entitled Legal Medicine authored by Dr. Pedro Solis,
viz:
“a dead body must not be embalmed before the autopsy. The

embalming fluid may render the tissue and blood unfit for
toxilogical analyses. The embalming may alter the gross
appearance of the tissues or may result to a wide variety of
artifacts that tend to destroy or obscure evidence.”
“the body must be autopsied in the same condition when found
at the crime scene. A delay in the performance may fail or modify
the possible findings thereby not serving the interest of justice.”17
Petitioner’s reliance on this citation is misplaced.

Petitioner failed to adduce evidence that the one month
delay in the autopsy indeed modified the possible findings.
He also failed to substantiate his claim that the embalming
fluid
_______________
16 Id., at pp. 44-45

17 Rollo, p. 21.
417
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 417

rendered the tissue and blood of Lucrecio unfit for

toxilogical analysis.
Further, it is settled that courts will only consider as
evidence that which has been formally offered.18 The
allegation that the results of the autopsy are unworthy of
credence was based on a book that was neither marked for
identification nor formally offered in evidence during the
hearing of the case. Thus, the trial court as well as the
appellate court correctly disregarded them. The
prosecution was not even given the opportunity to object as
the book or a portion thereof was never offered in
evidence.19
A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to
base their findings of fact and judgment only—and strictly
—upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To
rule otherwise would deprive the opposing party of his
chance to examine the document and object to its
admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty
reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the
court below.20 Any evidence which a party desires to
submit to the courts must be offered formally because a
judge must base his findings strictly on the evidence
offered by the parties at the trial.21
We are not impressed with petitioner’s argument that he
should be held liable only for reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide due to the absence of intent to kill Lucrecio.
When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill,
the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, since with
respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks
particularly to the material results following the unlawful
act and holds
_______________
18 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Section 34.

19 Candido v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 95, 99; 253 SCRA 78, 82
(1996).
20 Id., at p. 100; pp. 82-83.
21 Id.
418

the aggressor responsible for all the consequences

thereof.22 Accordingly, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code
provides:
“Art. 4. Criminal liability.—Criminal liability shall be

incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
x x x x”
Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching

Lucrecio, his uncle who was much older than him, and even
if he did not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must
be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing him
pursuant to the above-quoted provision. He who is the
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.23
Considering the foregoing discussion, we find that both
the trial court and the appellate court correctly appreciated
the evidence presented before them. Both courts did not
overlook facts and circumstances that would warrant a
reevaluation of the evidence. Accordingly, there is no
reason to digress from the settled legal principle that the
appellate court will generally not disturb the assessment of
the trial court on factual matters considering that the
latter as a trier of facts, is in a better position to appreciate
the same.
Further, it is settled that findings of fact of the trial
court are accorded greatest respect by the appellate court
absent any abuse of discretion.24 There being no abuse of
discretion in this case, we affirm the factual findings of the
trial court.
_______________
22 United States v. Gloria, 3 Phil. 333, 335 (1904).

23 People v. Ural, 155 Phil. 116, 123; 56 SCRA 138, 144 (1974).
24 People v. San Gabriel, 323 Phil. 102, 108; 253 SCRA 84, 89 (1996).
419
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 419

Penalty and Damages

The penalty for Homicide under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal the range of
which is from 12 years and one day to 20 years. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in
degree is prision mayor the range of which is from six years
and one day to 12 years. In this case, we find that the
mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave
a wrong as that committed, attended the commission of the
crime. Thus, the appellate court correctly imposed the
indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to 12 years and one day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.
As regards the amount of damages, civil indemnity must
also be awarded to the heirs of Lucrecio without need of
proof other than the fact that a crime was committed
resulting in the death of the victim and that petitioner was
responsible therefor.25 Accordingly, we award the sum of
P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.26
The award of P135,331.00 for the loss of earning
capacity was also in order.27 The prosecution satisfactorily
proved that the victim was earning an annual income of
P14,000.00 from the harvest of pineapples. Besides, the
defense no longer impugned this award of the trial court.
However, the other awards of damages must be
modified. It is error for the trial court and the appellate
court to award actual damages of P30,000.00 for the
expenses incurred for the death of the victim. We perused
the records and did not find evidence to support the plea for
actual damages. The expenses incurred in connection with
the death, wake and
_______________
25 People v. Diaz, 443 Phil. 67, 90-91; 395 SCRA 52, 71 (2003).
26 People v. Satonero, G.R. No. 186233, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 769.
27 See People v. Nullan, 365 Phil. 227, 257-258; 305 SCRA 679, 707
(1999).
420

burial of Lucrecio cannot be sustained without any tangible

document to support such claim. While expenses were
incurred in connection with the death of Lucrecio, actual
damages cannot be awarded as they are not supported by
receipts.28
In lieu of actual damages, the heirs of the victim can
still be awarded temperate damages. When pecuniary loss
has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature
of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages
may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in
cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is
convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some
pecuniary loss.29 In this regard, the amount of P25,000.00
is in accordance with recent jurisprudence.30
Moral damages was correctly awarded to the heirs of the
victim without need of proof other than the fact that a
crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim
and that the accused was responsible therefor.31 The award
of P50,000.00 as moral damages conforms to existing
jurisprudence.32
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 25069 finding
petitioner Roño Seguritan y Jara guilty of homicide and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of six years and one
day of prision mayor as minimum, to 12 years and one day
of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay the heirs of
Lucrecio Seguritan the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P135,331.00 as loss of earning capacity is
AFFIRMED with
_______________
28 People v. San Gabriel, supra note 24.

29 Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 146141,
October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 321, 329.
30 People v. Bascugin, G.R. No. 184704, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 453.
31 People v. San Gabriel, supra note 24.
32 People v. Satonero, supra note 26.
721
VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 721

MODIFICATION that petitioner is further ordered to pay

P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Abad and Perez, JJ.,

concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.—The number of wounds inflicted is not the sole

consideration in proving intent to kill; If the victim’s wound
would normally cause death, then the last act necessary to
produce homicide would have been performed and death
would have resulted were it not for the timely medical
attention given to the victim. (Novicio vs. People, 563 SCRA
680 [2008]).
Frustrated homicide is committed if the following are
present: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2)
the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die
because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the
qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code is present. (Mahawan vs. People,
574 SCRA 737 [2008]).
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

8 Seguritan V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Seguritan V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Seguritan V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

In order to preserve the credit worthiness of checks,

G.R. No. 172896. April 19, 2010.*

ROÑO SEGURITAN y JARA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

Evidence; Courts will only consider as evidence that which has

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 407

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 409

“That on or about November 25, 1995, in the municipality of

During the arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

his forehead. Lucrecio explained that he was stoned, then

death. Thus, she sought the assistance of the National

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 411

Petitioner presented Joel Cabebe, the Assistant

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond

accused to an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day of

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is partly

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the late Lucrecio Seguritan the amount of P 30,000.00 as actual

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was

Thus, this petition for review raising the following

The Court of Appeals erred in convicting the accused of the crime

The petition is denied.

10 CA Rollo, p. 163.

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 413

In fine, petitioner contends that the appellate court, in

hesitated to testify as shown by his execution of a sworn

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(Witness pointing to the back left part, middle back portion)12

We find no merit in petitioner’s argument that he could

12 TSN, December 15, 1998, p. 32.

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 415

The testimony of Dr. Vertido also ruled out petitioner’s

Q Since you were conducting just a cursory examination of the heart,

15 TSN, December 15, 1998, pp. 41-42.

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The notation in the Certificate of Death of Lucrecio that

“a dead body must not be embalmed before the autopsy. The

Petitioner’s reliance on this citation is misplaced.

16 Id., at pp. 44-45

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 417

rendered the tissue and blood of Lucrecio unfit for

18 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Section 34.

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the aggressor responsible for all the consequences

“Art. 4. Criminal liability.—Criminal liability shall be

Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching

22 United States v. Gloria, 3 Phil. 333, 335 (1904).

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 419

Sugiratan vs. People

Penalty and Damages

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

burial of Lucrecio cannot be sustained without any tangible

28 People v. San Gabriel, supra note 24.

VOL. 618, APRIL 19, 2010 721