G.R. No. 138404 -06; January 28, 2003
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr. alias “June Caloza”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rafael Caloza, Jr. was charged with three counts of murder for the deaths of Dionisio Bulaclac, his wife Edna, and their infant son Mark Joseph on July 6, 1997, in Cabanatuan City. The Informations alleged the killings were committed with treachery, taking advantage of nighttime, and with the use of a hard pointed object (bareta de kabra). Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty, and a joint trial ensued.
The prosecution’s evidence established that Dionisio Bulaclac, his wife, and their son lived in a hut on a farm lot. On July 6, 1997, at around 5:00 a.m., Allan Bulaclac, Dionisio’s brother, was on his way to help Dionisio. About a hundred meters from the hut, Allan met the accused, Rafael Caloza, Jr., whom he recognized from the light of his “lente.” Allan noticed bloodstains on Rafael’s clothes, and Rafael tried to evade him. Upon reaching the hut, Allan discovered the three victims dead inside. Autopsies conducted by Dr. Gilbert Embuscado revealed the victims died from cerebrovascular hemorrhage secondary to traumatic injuries, inflicted by both a sharp instrument and a hard object.
The defense presented Rafael Caloza, Jr., who denied the charges. He testified that on the night of July 5, 1997, he and two Visayan companions were drinking and went to Dionisio’s hut to ask for a duck or chicken for pulutan. After Dionisio refused, they left, but his two companions returned to the hut. Rafael, who was 7 to 10 meters away, claimed he saw his two companions kill the victims. One companion, Dondon, threw a crowbar at him and threatened him. Rafael fled in fear and was later arrested in Valenzuela City on December 22, 1997.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Rafael Caloza, Jr. of three counts of murder, sentenced him to death for each count, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity and actual damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

ISSUE

The main issues raised were: (1) whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling, and the qualifying circumstances of abuse of superior strength and treachery were properly appreciated; and (3) whether the imposition of the death penalty was correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the combination of circumstances—(a) the accused was seen near the crime scene at the approximate time of the killings; (b) he was seen with bloodstains on his clothes; (c) he attempted to evade the witness; and (d) he fled and remained in hiding until his arrest—led to the inescapable conclusion that he was the perpetrator.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven for the murder of the infant Mark Joseph Bulaclac, as the attack on a four-month-old baby who could not offer any defense is inherently treacherous by nature and does not require a separate showing of the mode of attack. For the murders of Dionisio and Edna, treachery was established as the sudden and unexpected attack with a deadly weapon rendered them defenseless.
The Court did not appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling. Nocturnity was not deliberately sought, and dwelling was not alleged in the Informations. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed in treachery.
Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty could not be imposed because the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not alleged with specificity in the Informations for the murders of Dionisio and Edna. The Informations merely alleged “with treachery” without stating the basis, which failed to comply with the requirements for imposing the death penalty. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count of murder.
The Court also modified the awards of damages. For each victim, the accused was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court decision is as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 8198, accused-appellant is found guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Dionisio Bulaclac P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as temperate damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 8199, accused-appellant is found guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Edna Bulaclac P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as temperate damages.
(3) In Criminal Case No. 8200, accused-appellant is found guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Mark Joseph Bulaclac P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as temperate damages.