FACTS:

This case involves a motion for reconsideration of the decision affirming the judgment of conviction against accused-appellants Mayor Antonio Sanchez, George Medialdea, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, and Pepito Kawit for the crime of rape with homicide. The accused-appellants were also ordered to pay Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P700,000.00) to the heirs of the victims as additional indemnity.

Mayor Antonio Sanchez argues that he is a victim of trial and conviction by publicity and questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Accused-appellants Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion, and Pepito Kawit similarly argue that the prosecution witnesses have been impeached by prior inconsistent statements and that independent witnesses contradict the prosecution's version of events.

The court provides an overview of their previous decision, where they rejected the claim of bias due to publicity and upheld the credibility of the witnesses. The court also mentions that the alibi defense raised by the accused-appellants is weak and unsupported by evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimony of accused-appellant Sanchez's 13-year old daughter as to his whereabouts on the night of the crime should be given full faith and credence.

2. Whether the alibi of accused-appellant Sanchez can prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution that he was at Erais Farm on the night of the crime.

3. Whether the alibis of accused-appellants Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion, and Pepito Kawit deserve consideration.

4. Whether the amount of damages awarded to the Sarmenta and Gomez families is excessive.

5. Whether each accused-appellant should be ordered to pay an additional indemnity of P350,000 for civil liability.

6. Whether the heirs of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez are entitled to compensation for the loss of their future time and earning capacity.

7. Whether the amount of P15,000.00 per month testified by the witnesses is a sufficient basis to determine the earning capacity of Sarmenta and Gomez.

8. Whether the amount of P2,000,000.00 awarded as moral damages to the Sarmenta and Gomez families is excessive.

RULING:

1. The testimony of accused-appellant Sanchez's 13-year old daughter as to his whereabouts cannot be given full faith and credence since alibi is the weakest defense and her testimony is unsupported by any other evidence.

2. Accused-appellant Sanchez's alibi cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution that he was at Erais Farm on the night of the crime.

3. The alibis of accused-appellants Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion, and Pepito Kawit are not supported by any other evidence and therefore do not deserve consideration.

4. The amount of damages awarded to the Sarmenta and Gomez families is excessive. The trial court's award of P50,000 as civil liability should be deducted from the total actual damages awarded.

5. Each accused-appellant should be ordered to pay an additional indemnity of P350,000 for civil liability since they have been found guilty of seven counts of rape with homicide.

6. Yes, the heirs of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez are entitled to compensation for the loss of their future time and earning capacity.

7. No, the amount of P15,000.00 per month testified by the witnesses is speculative and insufficient basis to determine the earning capacity of Sarmenta and Gomez. The court fixed the monthly income that the two would have earned in 1993 at P8,000.00 per month.

8. Yes, the amount of P2,000,000.00 awarded as moral damages to the Sarmenta and Gomez families is excessive. The court reduces the amount of moral damages awarded to each family to P1,000,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

• Statements of children are accorded great probative value.

• Alibi is the weakest defense an accused can concoct.

• Alibi must be supported by evidence other than the testimony of a relative.

• Positive declarations of the prosecution can prevail over alibi.

• Alibis not supported by any other evidence deserve little consideration.

• Damages must be proved and there must be evidence of its actual amount.

• Burial expenses must be proved and supported by appropriate receipts.

• Actual damages may be awarded for funeral expenses incurred.

• The fact that there is no documentary evidence to support a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity does not preclude recovery.

• Compensation for loss of earning capacity is awarded for loss of capacity to earn money, not for loss of earnings.

• The deceased has a right to his own time, which cannot be taken from him by a tortfeasor without compensation.

• Damages cannot be awarded on the speculation, passion, or guess of the judge or witnesses.

• The assessment of moral damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case, with the purpose of indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction.

• The award of moral damages is aimed at restoring the spiritual status quo ante and must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.

• Attorney's fees and litigation expenses may be awarded if reasonable and justified.