EN BANC G.R. No. 170136 : January 18, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NE!, Appellee, v. ROBERT BRO"ETT y PAJARO, Appellant.

RE!OL#T ON CARP O, J.: Before this Court for review is the 2 August 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00 !. "he Court of Appeals affir#e$ the $ecision of the Regional "rial Court% Branch &!% 'r$aneta Cit(% )angasinan% fin$ing appellant Ro*ert Bro$ett ( )a+aro ,appellant- guilt( of #ur$er% with the #o$ification that onl( the generic aggravating circu#stance of scoffing at the corpse is appreciate$. Appellant% together with Ronal$ Dula( ,Dula(- an$ Re(nal$ $e Gu.#an were charge$ with #ur$ering Dr. April Du/ue ,April-. "he( plea$e$ not guilt( upon arraign#ent an$ trial ensue$ thereafter. "he prosecution esta*lishe$ $uring the trial that on 20 Dece#*er 2000% the )hilippine National )olice ,)N)- 1tation at Alcala% )angasinan receive$ a report at aroun$ 2200 a.#. regar$ing a *urning corpse on the spillwa( of 3aoac% Alcala% along the national highwa(. Chief of )olice 3u$ovico Bravo an$ his #en procee$e$ to the site an$ saw the corpse still *urning. "he( poure$ water over the *urning corpse until the fire was e4tinguishe$. "he( note$ that the *urne$ corpse was that of a wo#an who was a*out five feet tall an$ with fair co#ple4ion. "he( *rought the corpse to a funeral parlor where an autops( was perfor#e$ *( Dr. Alfre$o 3aguar$ia ,Dr. 3aguar$ia-. A ring an$ a wristwatch ta5en fro# the left ar# of the corpse were turne$ over to the hea$ investigator of the police station. 6n 15 7anuar( 2001% the corpse was *urie$ at the pu*lic ce#eter( after it re#aine$ unclai#e$ for several $a(s. 6n 1 8e*ruar( 2001% April9s #other an$ so#e agents of the National Bureau of :nvestigation ,NB:- fro# Dagupan Cit( in/uire$ at the )N) Alcala 1tation a*out a #issing person na#e$ April. "he NB: agents wante$ to verif( whether the corpse foun$ on the spillwa( was that of April. ;hen shown a picture of the *urne$ corpse% April9s #other e4clai#e$ that it was her $aughter. April9s #other an$ the NB: agents went to the ce#eter( an$ ha$ the corpse e4hu#e$. 'pon seeing the corpse% April9s #other crie$ an$ e4clai#e$ that the facial features were those of her $aughter an$ that she 5new it was her $aughter. 1he also i$entifie$ the ring an$ wristwatch ta5en fro# the corpse as *elonging to her $aughter. )rior to her $eath% April ha$ *een the live-in partner of appellant for nine (ears. April an$ appellant have a then 5-(ear-ol$ son na#e$ Gio*ert% who was one of the prosecution witnesses. Accor$ing to Gio*ert% his #o##( was alrea$( in heaven *ecause his $a$$( 5ille$ her. Gio*ert testifie$ that he saw his $a$$( hit his #o##(9s hea$ with a ha##er an$ that his $a$$( also sta**e$ his #o##(.

Another prosecution witness was 1hirle( Du.on ,1hirle(-% the assistant of April% who was a $er#atologist% in her clinic. 1hirle( testifie$ that on 2< Dece#*er 2000% she was at the clinic together with April9s son% Gio*ert. Accor$ing to 1hirle(% April was sche$ule$ to leave for =ong >ong at 11200 p.#. that $a( together with her allege$ new *o(frien$ Dula( an$ her son Gio*ert. ;hen April faile$ to return to the clinic% 1hirle( $eci$e$ to close the clinic at aroun$ 0200 p.#. an$ *rought Gio*ert to April9s resi$ence. 1hirle( i$entifie$ the ring an$ wristwatch ta5en fro# the corpse as *elonging to April. "he $efense presente$ appellant as the lone witness. Appellant a$#itte$ that he was the live-in partner of April for nine (ears. Appellant% April% an$ their son Gio*ert live$ together in a townhouse in 'r$aneta ?illas. Appellant9s testi#on( $elve$ #ainl( on April9s allege$ hatre$ of her #other *ecause of the latter9s e4tra-#arital relations. ;hen as5e$ a*out the ring an$ wristwatch ta5en fro# the corpse% appellant $enie$ that these ite#s *elonge$ to April. 6n 5 7une 2002% the trial court ren$ere$ a $ecision% the $ispositive portion of which rea$s2 ;=@R@86R@% in view of the foregoing% the Court fin$s the accuse$ R6B@R" BR6D@"" ( )a+aro% G':3"A *e(on$ reasona*le $ou*t of the cri#e of B'RD@R $efine$ an$ penali.e$ un$er Repu*lic Act No. !50 otherwise 5nown as the =einous Cri#eCsD 3aw% the offense having *een co##itte$ with the atten$ant aggravating circu#stances of superior strength% $welling% with insult or in $isregar$ of the respect $ue the offen$e$ part( on account of her se4% cruelt( an$ outraging or scoffing at her person or corpse% here*( sentences hi# the ulti#u# suplicu# of D@A"= to *e e4ecute$ pursuant to Repu*lic Act No. <1 5nown as the 3ethal :n+ection 3aw% to pa( the heirs of the victi# DRA. A)R:3 1AN"61-D'E'@ in the a#ount of )50%000.00 as in$e#nit( an$ )1%000%000.00 as #oral $a#ages% an$ to pa( the costs. :t is sai$2 FDura 3e4% se$ le4%F translate$ as F"he law is harsh% *ut that is the lawGF ;ith respect to the accuse$ R6NA3D D'3AA an$ R@ANA3D D@ G'HBAN% for insufficienc( of evi$ence against the#% the Court $eclares their ACE':""A3. "he war$en of the Bureau of 7ail Banage#ent an$ )enolog( ,B7B)- of 'r$aneta Cit(% )angasinan% where the accuse$ are presentl( $etaine$% is or$ere$ to release i##e$iatel( the persons of the sai$ accuse$ Dula( an$ $e Gu.#an% unless the( are $etaine$ for an( legal or lawful cause or causes. 16 6RD@R@D.2 6n appeal% appellant allege$ that the prosecution faile$ to prove his guilt *e(on$ reasona*le $ou*t. :n its 2 August 2005 Decision% the Court of Appeals affir#e$ the trial court9s $ecision with the #o$ification that% asi$e fro# the /ualif(ing circu#stance of treacher(% onl( the generic aggravating circu#stance of scoffing at the corpse is appreciate$. "he Court of Appeals hel$ that the #ur$er of April was /ualifie$ *( treacher(. "he in+uries suffere$ *( April clearl( showe$ that she $i$ not have an( chance to $efen$ herself. As regar$s the aggravating circu#stance of a*use of superior strength% the Court of Appeals hel$ that it was alrea$( a*sor*e$ in treacher(. 1ince appellant an$

April resi$e$ in the sa#e house% the appellate court rule$ that the aggravating circu#stance of $welling coul$ not *e consi$ere$. "he Court of Appeals li5ewise $i$ not appreciate the aggravating circu#stance of $isrespect on account of se4 since appellant $i$ not $eli*eratel( inten$ to insult or $isrespect April9s wo#anhoo$. =owever% the appellate court agree$ with the trial court in appreciating the aggravating circu#stance of outraging or scoffing at the victi#9s corpse which was *urne$ an$ left on the spillwa( in or$er to conceal the cri#e. ;e agree with the Court of Appeals that the evi$ence of the prosecution clearl( esta*lishe$ that appellant #ur$ere$ April. "he #ost incri#inator( evi$ence against appellant ca#e fro# appellant9s 5-(ear-ol$ son Gio*ert who saw his father 5ill his #other April. Gio*ert even $e#onstrate$ in court how appellant 5ille$ his #other. Gio*ert9s testi#on( of how April was 5ille$ was corro*orate$ *( the #e$ico-legal report of Dr. 3aguar$iaI an$ the autops( report of Dr. Ronal$ Ban$onill.& chanro*lesvirtuallawli*ar( :n this case% appellant 5ille$ April *( hitting her hea$ with a ha##er an$ sta**ing her nec5 using a *la$e$ weapon. "he #e$ical an$ autops( reports reveale$ that April sustaine$ contusion% lacerate$ woun$s an$ he#ato#a on the scalp an$ forehea$% an$ a nec5 sta* woun$.5 Clearl(% the 5illing of April was atten$e$ *( treacher( an$ a*use of superior strength. "here is treacher( when the #o$e of the attac5 ten$s to insure the acco#plish#ent of the cri#inal purpose without ris5 to the attac5er arising fro# an( $efense the victi# #ight offer.! 8urther#ore% an attac5 *( a #an with a $ea$l( weapon upon an unar#e$ an$ $efenseless wo#an constitutes a*use of superior strength. =owever% a*use of superior strength as an aggravating circu#stance is alrea$( a*sor*e$ in treacher(.< cra "he trial court an$ the appellate court i#pose$ upon appellant the $eath penalt(. =owever% in view of the effectivit( of Repu*lic Act No. 0I&!%0 the i#position of the $eath penalt( has *een prohi*ite$ an$ in lieu thereof% the penalt( ofreclusion perpetua shoul$ *e i#pose$% without eligi*ilit( for parole. ;e also re$uce the awar$ of #oral $a#ages fro#)1%000%000 to )50%000 an$ increase the civil in$e#nit( fro# )50%000 to ) 5%000 in accor$ance with prevailing +urispru$ence.10 8urther#ore% since the offense is atten$e$ *( aggravating circu#stances% e4e#plar( $a#ages in the a#ount of )25%000 shoul$ also *e i#pose$.11 cra $HEREFORE% we AFF R% with %O" F CAT ON the 2 August 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00 !. ;e fin$ appellant Ro*ert Bro$ett ( )a+aro guilt( *e(on$ reasona*le $ou*t of the cri#e of #ur$er% /ualifie$ *( treacher( an$ with the atten$ant aggravating circu#stance of outraging or scoffing at the victi#9s corpse. )ursuant to Repu*lic Act No. 0I&!% prohi*iting the i#position of the $eath penalt(% appellant is sentence$ to suffer the penalt( of reclusion perpetua without eligi*ilit( for parole. Appellant is further or$ere$ to pa( the victi#9s heirs ) 5%000 as civil in$e#nit(% )50%000 as #oral $a#ages% an$ )25%000 as e4e#plar( $a#ages. Costs against appellant. !O OR"ERE".