ANTONIO SORIAO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 30, 1981 which affirmed the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Aurora Subprovince,
Baler, Quezon (now the Regional Trial Court, Branch
66, at Baler, Aurora).

The antecedent facts as summarized in the People’s brief are as
follows:

“On January 9, 1978,
at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening,
M/B Sweet Lord departed from the log pond of Dibet, Casiguran, Quezon (pp. 4-5, tsn., June 27, 1978).  The boat was around 44 feet in length, 5 feet
in height and five feet in width (pp. 8-9, t.s.n., August 24, 1978).  On board were 23 passengers, 70 sacks of
copra with as weight of 80 kilos per sacks (sic), 4 sacks of rice, 4 sacks of carabao hide, luggages (sic) of
the passengers, 4 pigs, 4 chickens, cash and other valuables (pp. 8, 34, t.s.n., June 27, 1978; p. 41, tsn.,
July 24, 1978).  In addition, there were
five (5) crew members among whom was the petitioner
who boarded the boat in Dinalungan, Quezon (p. 5, tsn., June 27,
1978).  The boat was overloaded as
evidenced by the fact that only a palm’s width of its height was above the
water and its waterline was already submerged (p. 8, tsn.,
June 27, 1978).  When the boat left Casiguran, it was piloted by Domingo Zamora until the
petitioner boarded.  (p.
21, Id.)

“At around 1:00 o’clock
the following morning the boat left Dinalungan, but
this time, upon the orders of the petitioner (pp. 6, 27, tsn., Id.).  The waves then were as big as a hut so that
the boat had to stop at the port of Dinadiawan (Id., p. 6, tsn., June 26, 1978). 
After three hours of waiting, the petitioner ordered the boat to resume
its voyage despite the fact that the sea was still rough (pp. 6-7, Id.).  Petitioner made this order
over the objection of the employed captain Zamora,
who said that the boat could not cope with the trip anymore (p. 6, tsn., June 27, 1978). 
And as expected the boat sank, causing the death of most of the
passengers and the loss and destruction of the cargoes.  (p. 7, Id.)” (pp. 132-134, Rollo).

Petitioner Antonio Soriao (Soriao, for brevity) and Domingo Zamora (Zamora,
for brevity) were charged with the crime of multiple homicide and damage to
property thru reckless imprudence before the Court of First Instance of Aurora
Sub-province, Baler, Quezon, under an
information which reads:

“That on or about the 10th day of January, 1978, on the
Pacific Ocean, in the Municipality of Baler, Subprovince
of Aurora Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
together and helping each other, being then the persons-in-charge and operators
of a motor boat, ‘SWEET LORD,’ which they had overloaded with passengers and
cargoes, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously manage and operate, or cause to be managed and operate, the said
motor boat SWEET LORD, which is owned jointly by accused Antonio Soriao and his cousin, Anacleto Tejerero, in a careless, reckless and imprudent manner
without taking the necessary precautions to avoids accident to persons or
damage to property, thus causing by their said carelessness, recklessness and
imprudence the said motor boat, to capsize and casting into the ocean all its
28 passengers and cargoes, drowning to death the following passengers, to wit:  Teresita Teves, Maria Teves, Gloria
Bernal, Salvacion Bernal, Jose Bernal, Rodrigo Discarga, Julio Discarga, Arturo Turno, Rosa Bernal Turno, Ricky
Rodolfo, Aurora Estabaya Ocillado,
Nelson Ocillado, and other missing or unidentified
passengers, and causing the irretrievable loss at sea of the following
properties, to wit:  P5,700.00 cash
money, 2 male pigs valued at P750.00, and 4 sacks of rice worth P400, belonging
to Teresita Teves;
P1,300.00 cash money, Titus wrist watch worth P150.00, 6 chickens, 1 goose, and
two ducks all worth P128.00, owned by Dominga Teves, two luggages full of
clothes worth P600.00 belonging to Teresita Teves, Dominga Teves and Maria Teves; P4,000.00
cash money and 22 pieces of dried cowhide worth P3,430.00 belonging to Jose Bernal;
P700.00 cash money and Fly Wheel machine for generator worth P550.00 owned by
Julio Discarga; P500 cash money of Rodrigo Discarga; P399.00 cash money of Gloria Bernal; 2 pigs worth
P400.00, cash money in the sum of P3,000.00, and one bayong
or bag full of clothes worth P200.00 belonging to Arturo Turno;
and P500,00 cash money owned by Raul Ocillada, to the
damage and prejudice of the aforementioned owners in the total sum of
P22,707.00, Philippine Currency.

“Contrary to law.” (pp. 1-2,
Records)

The case proceeded against Soriao only
since Zamora remains at-large.  On October
27, 1978, after trial on the merits, the Court of First Instance
rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Antonio Soriao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
multiple homicide with damage to property thru reckless imprudence, and
applying Article 365, paragraphs 1 and 5 in connection with Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months of arresto
mayor as minimum to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional
as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sums appearing
opposite their respective names:

and Felix Rodolfo in the sum of P1,459 and
Loreto Tanteo in the sum of P2,430, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with all the accessory penalties
of the law, and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.

“The accused Domingo Zamora not having been as yet arrested
since the issuance of the warrant of arrest on May 2, 1978, LET another warrant
of arrest be issued for his apprehension, and so that this case with respect to
him may not remain pending, LET the record be sent to the files after the
promulgation of this decision, without prejudice to its withdrawal therefrom as soon as he is arrested.

“The Clerk of Court shall forward the original warrant to the
Commanding Officer of the Aurora District Command stationed at San Luis, Quezon, and a copy thereof to the proper station commander
of the Integrated National Police.

“SO ORDERED.

“Baler, Subprovince
of Aurora, Quezon,
October 27, 1978.”
(pp. 71-72, Records)

Whereupon, Soriao appealed to the Court
of Appeals which, as earlier stated, affirmed the aforesaid judgment.  Hence, the present
recourse.

In the resolution of July
15, 1981 (p. 42, Rollo), We required the respondents to comment on the herein
petition.  Said comment was filed on September 17, 1981 (p. 49, Rollo).  On September 30, 1981, We denied the petition for lack of merit (p. 58, Rollo).  Petitioner Soriao filed two succeeding motions for extension to file
motion for reconsideration which We granted in the
resolutions of November 18, 1981
(p. 71, Rollo) and December 7, 1981 (p. 86, Rollo),
respectively.  Subsequently, the motion
for reconsideration was filed (p. 75, Rollo).  In the same resolution of December 7, 1981, We
required the respondents to comment thereon. 
Said comment was filed on January
28, 1982 (p. 93, Rollo) to which a reply
thereto was filed by Soriao (p. 100, Rollo).  In the
resolution of March 7, 1982,
We (1) set aside the resolution of September 30, 1981; and (2) gave due
course to the petition (p. 107, Rollo).  Thereafter, the parties were required to file
their respective briefs.

The sole issue posed in the instant petition is whether or not Soriao is liable to suffer the prison terms and civil
damages meted out by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals
(Petitioner’s Brief, p. 7).

Petitioner Soriao contends that he is
neither the owner nor captain of the M/B Sweet Lord but merely a passenger
thereof and submits proofs of a (1) deed of sale of the boat engine to his
cousin, Cleto Tejerero on
August 30, 1977; (2) Mayor’s permit which showed the registration of the boat
in the name of Cleto Tejerero;
(3) official receipt for fixed tax payment dated January 26, 1978; and (4)
municipal tax license; that he merely suggested that the voyage continue
despite the rough weather to which the other passengers did not object and
thus, if he were negligent, all the others had an equal share in that
negligence; that he took over the command of the boat since the boat captain
had lost control of himself and was seen just “walking back and forth on
the boat” (p. 11, Petitioner’s Brief); that he merely acted on the
instinct of self-preservation; and that, therefore, he has no civil and
criminal liability pursuant to Article 2184 of the New Civil Code.

At first blush it would appear that Soriao’s
arguments could be valid.  However, after
a painstaking review of the records of the case, We
are constrained to uphold the findings of the Court of Appeals.

Soriao asserts that he is neither the
owner nor the captain but only a passenger of M/B Sweet Lord.  Likewise, he maintains that he merely
suggested that the voyage continue despite the stormy weather to which the
other passengers did not object.  Thus,
he concludes that if he were negligent, then the rest of the passengers would
equally share in his negligence under the doctrine of pari
delicto. 
Soriao’s submissions deserve no merit.  We are not dealing here with the issue of
ownership of the boat but of Soriao’s criminal
liability under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.  A reading of the judgment of the trial court
reveals that Soriao’s conviction was based not on the
latter’s ownership of M/B Sweet Lord but on his role in the operation and
management thereof which cost so many lives and damage to properties.  Contrary to his contention, Soriao was not an ordinary passenger in that voyage.  The survivors of the ill-fated M/B Sweet Lord
positively declared that Soriao piloted the boat from
Dinalungan up to the time just before it sank in the
waters of Baler (TSNs, June 26, 1978, pp. 7, 15-16;
June 27, 1978, p. 6; July 24, 1978, pp. 18 and 20).  These testimonies were uncontradicted
by Soriao.  We
find no evidence of any improper motive on the witnesses’ part to testify
against Soriao. 
Hence, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit (People vs.
Sawah, L-15333, June 29, 1962; 5 SCRA 385).  The relatives of the victims and the
survivors themselves believed that Soriao was the
owner of the boat and the boss of Captain Domingo Zamora and the crew (TSNs, June 26, 1978, pp. 16, 19, 36, 82; June 27, 1978, pp.
14, 20-22).  Such impression naturally
would foreclose any opposition from the passengers to Soriao’s
alleged suggestion that the voyage continue and his having taken the helm of
the boat in lieu of Zamora.  The doctrine of pari
delicto would, therefore, not apply in this
case.

Soriao’s claim that the instinct of
self?preservation prodded him to pilot the boat because Zamora had lost
control of himself and was seen just “walking back and forth on the
boat” is negated by evidence which showed that he was in full command of
the boat from the time he boarded the boat in Dinalungan
until it proceeded on its voyage up to the time before the boat capsized.  Diosdado Temajo testified that Soriao
instructed Zamora to go and stop at Dinadiawan to
“let the big waves subside”; that after three hours, he directed the
continuation of the voyage inspite of the turbulent
weather since the boat could withstand the storm; and that Soriao
steered the boat sometimes (TSN, June 26, 1978, pp. 6-7).  Witness Raul Ocillada
corroborated Temajo’s testimony in regard to Soriao’s order to stop by Dinadiawan;
that he ordered the captain not to proceed unless the
order is given; and that he ordered the resumption of the trip (TSN, June 26,
1978, pp. 36, 35-39).  Another witness,
Felix Rodolfo testified that Soriao piloted the boat
when it left Dinalungan; and that he ordered the
continuation of the voyage despite the objection of Zamora
(TSN, June 27, 1978).  Against this
backdrop, Soriao could not have just taken the helm
of M/B Sweet Lord moments before the disaster occurred as he wants Us to believe.  He
proceeded with the voyage despite the evident risk to the lives of the
passengers in view of the storm and the fact that the boat was then
overloaded.  The Court of Appeals noted
such recklessness and ruled:

“x x x.  Instead of
waiting for fair weather to return, appellant ordered Domingo Zamora to resume
the voyage of the boat, in the belief that their boat could cope with the
weather situation.  Viewed thus, there
was therefore already an attendant risk brought about by the weather conditions
still prevailing but appellant then entertained the reckless belief that the
newly constructed vessel could cope with the situation which unfortunately
turned out to be a mistake.  As the
vessel then was manifestly a common carrier, loaded with paying passengers and
cargo it was the legal and moral duty of appellant to observe extraordinary
diligence specially with regard to the safety of the
passengers.  Here added to the handicap
of the bad weather which had not fully subsided is the overloaded condition of
the boat such that the portion of the boat above the water is stated to be only
the length of a palm and the indicated red water line was submerged (tsn 9, June 26,
1978).” (pp. 37-38, Rollo)

Also, We find that Soriao
could easily take over the management of the boat considering his moral
ascendancy over Zamora.  Thus, We agree with
the trial court which held that:

“3.  Given the evidence
presented by the defense itself, that the accused and Cleto
Tejerero are first cousins; the M/B Sweet Lord was
constructed in Dinalungan near the house of the
brother of the accused, Honorio Soriao,
adjacent to the house of Dominador Bagadiong for about thirty-nine days; the accused helped in
its construction as a carpenter during which Cleto Tejerero and Master Carpenter Potenciano
de Guzman stayed in his house; he was on the M/B Sweet Lord when it was tested
for a long distance trip to Baler on January 5, 1978, together with Cleto Tejerero, Master Carpenter Potenciano de Guzman, Crispulo Udato, Eddie Bagadiong and
Domingo Zamora who was its pilot and was also being tested as such; he was on
the M/B Sweet Lord when it made its ill-fated trip to Baler at about 1 in the
morning of January 10, 1978; and that after it capsized, he reported it to the
police of Baler and he told them, among other things, that:

’12. T:  Bakit
at sa aking
pagkaka-alam sangayon sa mga tao o sakay na nakaligtas sa
nasabing aksidente ikaw daw ang
siyang may-ari nito?

S:  Hindi
po ako ang
may?ari kundi itong si Anacleto
Tejerero at ang bilin lamang niya
sa akin ng
siya ay umalis patungo sa Maynila
para kumuha ng lisensiya ay ibigay sa akin ang collection ng nasabing bangka hanggat hindi siya
dumating galing sa Maynila.’

which instruction was given by Cleto Tejerero, in the presence
of Domingo Zamora, on January 5, 1978 in the store in Cemento,
Baler, Quezon where they took a snack after the
successful test-trip of the M/B Sweet Lord, it is not hard to believe that the
accused piloted the said M/B Sweet Lord at about 9-to-10 in the morning of
January 10, 1978 when it was between Dipaculao and
Baler and when it was hit by three waves and it capsized, for he being a closer
relative and confidant of Cleto Tejerero
had ascendancy over Domingo Zamora who was a pilot-on-test x x x.” (pp. 70-71, Records)

Finally, Soriao anchors his arguments on Article 2184 of the New Civil Code which, as correctly
observed by the Solicitor General, is totally irrelevant in this
case.  His civil liability arises from
his criminal conviction pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.

The maximum term of the indeterminate penalty imposed by the
trial court on the accused Soriao and affirmed by the
respondent court is not correct. 
Considering the provisions of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, such
maximum term should have been taken from the maximum period of the prescribed
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional
in its medium period under paragraph 1 of Article 365 of the same Code, that is
from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two
(2) months.  The proper penalty,
therefore, that the accused Soriao should suffer is
an indeterminate penalty of not less than four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, but not more than
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, taking into account the
circumstances surrounding the offense committed.

The trial court likewise granted actual damages in addition to
the indemnity for the death of the victims in the amount of P12,000.00 each. 
Presently, the indemnity for death has been increased to P30,000.00 (People v. Daniel, L-66551, April 25, 1985; 136 SCRA
92).  Consequently, Soriao
should indemnify the heirs of each of the victims the amount of P30,000.00 in addition to the actual damages adjudged in the
decision of the trial court.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the decision of
the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification of the penalty
imposed upon Soriao and the increased amount of
indemnity for death in addition to the actual damages adjudged in the decision
of the trial court as above indicated.  With costs against Soriao.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

Grino-Aquino, J., see
separate concurring and dissenting opinion.