[84] PEOPLE v.

GANDIA (FERNANDEZ)
Feb. 6, 2008 | Carpio-Morales | Procedure in the RTC FACTS:
1. At around 12 mn of June 27, 1993, while Louie Albuero (victim) and his
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines companions including Francisco Serrano were at a drinking spree at the Ruby
RESPONDENTS: Damaso Gandia y Castro, Jerry Ramirez y Recio, Renato Disco Pub located on G. Redor Street, Siniloan, Laguna, Francisco pressed
Olleres y Rivera, Dante Gandia y Santos, Joel Gonzales y Todio and Ernesto for the service to them of more beer, but as the pub was about to close, it was
Calaripio y Morales denied.
2. A club bouncer thereupon approached Francisco and pub owner Damaso
SUMMARY: At around 12 mn of June 27, 1993, Louie Albuero (victim) and his Gandia. Pedro Serrano, sensing trouble intervened to calm down the parties.
friends, including Francisco, were at a drinking spree in Ruby Disco Pub in 3. The victim and company thereupon settled their bill and left in the course of
Laguna. Francisco asked for more beer but was denied since the pub was already which empty bottles were thrown at them.
closing. A club bouncer approached Francisco and the pub owner, Damaso. 4. Irritated, Francisco and the victim returned at which Damaso, who was
Sensing trouble, the victim and his friends settled their bill and left. But while standing at the main door of the pub, tried to play down the incident.
leaving, empty bottles were thrown at them which irritated Franciso and Albuero. 5. The victim boxed Damaso, however, drawing Pedro to restrain Damaso and
Both returned and Albuero boxed Damaso and so Pedro restrained Albuero and apologize for what the victim did.
apologized for what happened. But Damaso instructed his men to run after the 6. Not mollified, Damaso instructed his men to run after the victim as he himself
victim and he also got his gun at the upper floor of the pub and thereafter fired it. took his gun at the upper floor of the pub and thereafter fired it.
Damaso and his men caught up with the victim who stumbled down. As the victim 7. The victim, Francisco and Elpidio Serrano immediately fled but Damaso and
lay in a prone position, Gonzales, Dante, Ramirez and Olleres stabbed him several his men chased them.
times as Calaripio and Bagolbagol watched. The victim was pronounced dead on 8. Damaso and his men caught up with the victim who stumbled down. As the
arrival at the hospital. Appellants, along with Bagolbagol were indicted for victim lay in a prone position, Gonzales, Dante, Ramirez and Olleres stabbed
murder. All of the accused invoked alibi, but the trial court convicted all of them. him several times as Calaripio and Bagolbagol watched.
Damaso, Dante, and Ramirez, who had filed a notice of appeal, subsequently 9. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the General Cailles Memorial
withdrew the appeal which the SC granted. SC referred the case to the CA with Hospital due to “hemorrhage, severe, secondary to stab wound-chest and
respect to Olleres, Gonzales and Calaripio. The CA affirmed the conviction and abdomen.” The Necropsy Report showed that he obtained 9 stab wounds and
modified the trial court’s decision by acquitting Calaripio and imposing abrasions in different parts of his body.
exemplary damages of 25k to the 5 accused. W/N the CA’s modification of the 10. Gonzales and Calaripio were arrested not long after the incident. Bagolbagol
trial court’s decision of imposing exemplary damages even to Damaso, Dante, surrendered to the police and the following day or on June 29, 1993. Damaso
and Ramirez (non-appealing parties) was proper? NO went to Bicol but surrendered a year after or on June 28, 1994. Dante went to
Cardona, Rizal, Olleres to San Pablo City, and Ramirez to Pasig City where
The guilt of appellants Olleres and Gonzales are well-taken but the CA erred in they were respectively arrested.
ordering Damaso, Ramirez and Dante who had withdrawn their appeal, to pay the 11. Appellants here, along with Eduardo Bagolbagol were indicted for murder in
heirs of the victim jointly and severally, along with the 2 remaining appellants an Information dated Sept. 1, 1993.
Olleres and Gonzales 25k in exemplary damages. The trial court’s decision in so 12. That on or about June 28, 1993 at G. Redor St., Municipality of Siniloan,
far as Damaso, Ramirez and Dante are concern had become final and executory Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
after they withdrew their appeal. CA is bereft of the power to modify the trial above-named accused, while conveniently armed with deadly weapons
court’s judgment as to them. Even if the trial court erred in not awarding (firearm & balisongs) with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and
exemplary damages in the first place in light of the established presence of an mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation and
aggravating circumstance, the award thereof by CA cannot affect Damaso, taking advantage of superior strength did then and there wil[l]fully,
Ramirez and Dante as, in effect, they did not appeal, and it is not favorable to unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab several times one Louie
them. Albuero y Serrano by the said weapons thereby inflicting upon him stab
wounds in the vital parts of his body which directly caused his death, to the
DOCTRINE: SEC. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. — (a) An damage and prejudice of the surviving heirs of the victim. That the qualifying
appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did and aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse
not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and of superior strength attended the commission of the crime.
applicable to the latter. 13. All of the accused invoked alibi. But the trial court convicted all of them and
 sentenced them to imprisonment ranging from 6 yrs and 1 day of prision repeating, withdrawn their appeal, to pay the heirs of the victim jointly and
mayor as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum and to indemnify severally, along with the 2 remaining appellants Olleres and Gonzales 25k in
the heirs of Albuero, jointly and severally: (a) for the death of the victim – exemplary damages.
50k; (b) funeral expenses actually incurred and paid – 30,844, without 3. The trial court’s decision in so far as Damaso, Ramirez and Dante are concern
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. had become final and executory after they withdrew their appeal.
14. Damaso, Dante and Ramirez, who had filed a Notice of Appeal, subsequently 4. Separate entries of judgment with respect to them had in fact been made.
filed separate motions to withdraw appeal which this Court granted. Thus, the CA is bereft of the power to modify the trial court’s judgment as to
15. The Court, by Resolution of Sept. 15, 2004, referred the case with respect to them.
appellants Olleres, Gonzales and Calaripio to the CA. 5. Even if the trial court erred in not awarding exemplary damages in the first
16. Appellants faulted the trial court in finding them guilty beyond reasonable place in light of the established presence of an aggravating circumstance, the
doubt. They posited that they should only be held liable for homicide as the award thereof by CA cannot affect Damaso, Ramirez and Dante as, in effect,
aggravating circumstance of treachery was not alleged with specificity so as they did not appeal, and it is not favorable to them.
to qualify the killing to murder, pursuant to Sec. 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules 6. Sec. 11 Rule 122 of the ROC directs:
of Crimpro that took effect on Dec. 31, 2000. SEC. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
17. CA affirmed the conviction of accused appellants including Damaso, Dante (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those
and Ramirez who had withdrawn their respective appeals. It modified the who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is
trial court’s decision by acquitting Calaripio and imposing exemplary favorable and applicable to the latter.
damages to the 5 accused.
18. With Calaripio’s acquittal, Partial Entry of Judgment relative to his appeal
was entered on Mar. 16, 2006, and Order of Release was issued by the CA
on Mar. 17, 2006.
19. In view of the Notice of Appeal from the CA’s decision filed by the remaining
appellants Olleres and Gonzales, the records of this case were forwarded to
the SC.
20. On Feb. 5, 2007, the SC required the parties to file their supplemental briefs
if they so desire within 20 days from notice. Both parties manifested that they
were no longer filing any supplemental briefs.

ISSUE:
1. WoN the CA’s decision of imposing exemplary damages to the non-
appealing parties (Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante) was proper? NO

RULING: WHEREFORE, the March 16, 2006 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. H.C.
No. 01648 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, the dispositive portion to
read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated Sept. 28, 1995 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Renato Olleres, and Joel Gonzales [are] ordered to pay, jointly and
severally, the heirs of Louie Albuero the additional amount of 25k as exemplary
damages. Ernesto Calaripio is ACQUITTED of the charge of murder. His immediate
release from custody is hereby ordered unless he is being held for other lawful causes.

RATIO:

1. The Court finds the affirmance by the CA of the guilt of appellants Olleres
and Gonzales well-taken.
2. But the CA erred in ordering Damaso, Ramirez and Dante who had, it bears