FACTS:

Appellant Francisco Dacillo y Timtim alias Dodoy, together with co-accused Joselito Pacot y Ibarra, were charged with the crime of murder. The prosecution alleged that on February 6, 2000, the accused, conspiring and confederating together, with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked, assaulted, and stabbed Rosemarie B. Tallada with a bladed weapon, resulting in her death. The commission of the crime was alleged to have been attended by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Joselito Pacot's case was provisionally dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence, leaving only appellant Dacillo to stand trial. Appellant pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded.

The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that on February 6, 2000, the victim was seen near appellant's house on a bridge. The witnesses heard a struggle coming from appellant's house and saw appellant and another man grappling with a woman. They reported the commotion to their aunt, who dismissed it as a family quarrel. The following day, witnesses observed appellant carrying lumber, screen, and ready-mixed cement. Appellant then entrusted a bag of woman's belongings to a barangay tanod, claiming it belonged to his woman companion. A few days later, the neighbors detected a rotting smell and observed blood and pus dripping from appellant's comfort room. They reported it to barangay officials who eventually discovered the decomposing body of the victim encased in cement in appellant's house.

An autopsy report revealed that the victim died from a stab wound in the abdomen and had other injuries indicating struggle before her death.

In his defense, appellant admitted his complicity in the crime but minimized his participation. He claimed that he only held down the victim's legs to prevent her from struggling and that it was another man, Joselito Pacot, who killed the victim. Appellant alleged that Pacot paid him to help encase the body in cement. He fled to Cebu City after the body was discovered and was arrested there the following year.

The trial court found appellant guilty of murder and imposed the death penalty. Appellant now seeks the reversal of the decision, alleging several errors committed by the trial court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding the heirs of the offended party the amount of PHP50,000.00 as payment for actual damages.

3. Whether the killing of Rosemarie was correctly qualified as murder by the abuse of superior strength

4. Whether the imposition of the death penalty based on the appellant's prior conviction as a recidivist was proper

5. Whether the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages were proper.

6. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the increased fare rates imposed by the taxicabs are reasonable and not excessive.

7. Whether the City Government of Manila has the power to regulate taxicab fares within its jurisdiction.

RULING:

1. The Court found appellant guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that appellant's admission, although attempted to downgrade his participation to only holding the victim's legs, is a strong piece of evidence against him. Moreover, the testimonies of eyewitnesses positively identifying him as one of the men involved in the killing further support his guilt. The Court also ruled that appellant's admission makes him a principal by direct participation in the crime.

2. The Court affirmed the trial court's award of PHP50,000.00 to the heirs of the offended party as payment for actual damages. The Court agreed with the trial court's finding that the killing was committed with abuse of superior strength, which resulted in the shocking inequality of physical strength between the two grown-up men and the young fragile woman. The victim's injuries, such as contusions, wounds, and fractures, further showed the abuse of superior strength.

3. The killing of Rosemarie was correctly qualified as murder by the abuse of superior strength.

4. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty based on the appellant's prior conviction as a recidivist because recidivism was not alleged in the information as required by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The imposable penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

5. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages were all proper.

6. No, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the increased fare rates imposed by the taxicabs are reasonable and not excessive. The Court found that the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the fare rates imposed were unreasonable and oppressive to the public. Moreover, the Court noted that the City of Manila had the authority to regulate the fares through an ordinance.

7. Yes, the City Government of Manila has the power to regulate taxicab fares within its jurisdiction. The Court held that the City of Manila has the authority to regulate fares in order to protect the interest of the commuting public. This power is granted to the City Government under the Local Government Code, which allows local government units to regulate public utilities, including transportation services.

PRINCIPLES:

• Admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof to hold him liable, unless it was made through palpable mistake or was not actually made.

• Two or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are considered principals by direct participation if they participated in the criminal resolution and carried out their plan by acts which directly tended to the same end.

• Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement, but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other pursuant to a common purpose or design.

• The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength necessitates a showing of relative disparity in the physical characteristics of the aggressor and the victim, such as age, gender, physical size, and strength.

• In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the information and certified true copies of the sentences previously meted out to the accused must be attached. (Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

• The award of civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim requires no proof other than the death of the victim and the accused's responsibility therefor.

• Moral damages may be awarded based on the testimony of the victim's family members regarding the pain and suffering caused by the victim's death.

• Temperate damages may be awarded in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented.

• Exemplary damages are warranted when the crime was committed with aggravating circumstances, both ordinary and qualifying. It is awarded not only to compensate the victim but also to set an example for the public good.

• The reasonableness of fare rates imposed by taxicabs should be determined based on the evidence presented by the parties.

• Local government units have the power to regulate the fares of public utilities, including taxicabs, in order to protect the interest of the commuting public.