G.R. No. 177299 ; November 28, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CHARLITO TUMULAK, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Charlito Tumulak was charged with parricide for the killing of his father, Marcelino Tumulak, on February 10, 1998. The prosecution presented Regalada Decena-Tumulak, the victim’s wife and appellant’s stepmother, who testified that she witnessed appellant box, kick, and strike Marcelino with hard objects inside their house. She stated the assault was motivated by appellant’s grudge against his father for burning his chicken cage. The victim, after a temporary respite, managed to escape but was later found dead. Dr. David Mendoza, the Municipal Health Officer, conducted a post-mortem examination and certified the cause of death as internal hemorrhage due to blunt trauma. Judge Romeo Almajar testified that during the preliminary investigation, appellant admitted to mauling his father.
For the defense, appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was at a cockpit arena during the time of the incident and had a good relationship with his father and stepmother. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide, appreciating the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty and imposing the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, ruling that cruelty could not be appreciated as it was not alleged in the Information, and adjusted the awarded damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed appellant’s conviction for parricide and properly modified the penalty and damages awarded.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification regarding damages. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the credible and categorical eyewitness account of Regalada, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant’s denial and alibi, uncorroborated and weak, could not prevail over the positive identification. The Court agreed with the appellate court’s legal logic on the penalty: under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information to be considered for increasing the penalty. Since cruelty was not pleaded, it could not be validly appreciated. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty for parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua, not death.
Regarding damages, the Supreme Court sustained the awards of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. However, it modified the CA decision by additionally awarding ₱10,000.00 as temperate damages. While the prosecution established that funeral expenses were incurred, no receipts were presented as evidence. The Court ruled that where actual damages are not fully proven by receipts, but expenses were clearly borne by the heirs, temperate damages may be awarded as a moderate assessment of the incurred costs. Thus, the penalty and monetary awards were rectified in accordance with law and jurisprudence.