Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
It was also during this first meeting that plaintiff expressed his
desire to obtain a US Visa for his wife and the wife of a
countryman named Abbas Torabian. The defendant told him
that he [could] help plaintiff for a fee of $2,000.00 per visa.
Their conversation, however, was more concentrated on
politics, carpets and caviar. Thereafter, the defendant
promised to see plaintiff again.
VITUG, J.:
Sometime in May 1986, an Information for violation of
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise also known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was filed against petitioner
Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 151, of Pasig City. The criminal charge
followed a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine
police narcotic agents in the house of Minucher, an Iranian
national, where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was
said to have been seized. The narcotic agents were
accompanied by private respondent Arthur Scalzo who would,
in due time, become one of the principal witnesses for the
prosecution. On 08 January 1988, Presiding Judge Eutropio
Migrino rendered a decision acquitting the two accused.
On 03 August 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case No. 8845691 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, of
Manila for damages on account of what he claimed to have
been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur
Scalzo. The Manila RTC detailed what it had found to be the
facts and circumstances surrounding the case.
"The testimony of the plaintiff disclosed that he is an Iranian
national. He came to the Philippines to study in the University
of the Philippines in 1974. In 1976, under the regime of the
Shah of Iran, he was appointed Labor Attach for the Iranian
Embassies in Tokyo, Japan and Manila, Philippines. When the
Shah of Iran was deposed by Ayatollah Khomeini, plaintiff
became a refugee of the United Nations and continued to stay
in the Philippines. He headed the Iranian National Resistance
Movement in the Philippines.
He came to know the defendant on May 13, 1986, when the
latter was brought to his house and introduced to him by a
certain Jose Iigo, an informer of the Intelligence Unit of the
military. Jose Iigo, on the other hand, was met by plaintiff at
the office of Atty. Crisanto Saruca, a lawyer for several
Iranians whom plaintiff assisted as head of the anti-Khomeini
movement in the Philippines.
During his first meeting with the defendant on May 13, 1986,
upon the introduction of Jose Iigo, the defendant expressed
his interest in buying caviar. As a matter of fact, he bought
two kilos of caviar from plaintiff and paid P10,000.00 for
it. Selling caviar, aside from that of Persian carpets, pistachio
nuts and other Iranian products was his business after the
Khomeini government cut his pension of over $3,000.00 per
month. During their introduction in that meeting, the
defendant gave the plaintiff his calling card, which showed
that he is working at the US Embassy in the Philippines, as a
special agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration,
Department of Justice, of the United States, and gave his
address as US Embassy, Manila. At the back of the card
The plaintiff took note of the fact that when the defendant
invited him to come out to meet his cousin, his safe was
opened where he kept the $24,000.00 the defendant paid for
the carpets and another $8,000.00 which he also placed in the
safe together with a bracelet worth $15,000.00 and a pair of
earrings worth $10,000.00. He also discovered missing upon
his release his 8 pieces hand-made Persian carpets, valued at
$65,000.00, a painting he bought for P30,000.00 together
with his TV and betamax sets. He claimed that when he was
handcuffed, the defendant took his keys from his wallet. There
was, therefore, nothing left in his house.
That his arrest as a heroin trafficker x x x had been well
publicized throughout the world, in various newspapers,
particularly in Australia, America, Central Asia and in the
Philippines. He was identified in the papers as an international
drug trafficker. x x x
In fact, the arrest of defendant and Torabian was likewise on
television, not only in the Philippines, but also in America and
in Germany. His friends in said places informed him that they
saw him on TV with said news.
After the arrest made on plaintiff and Torabian, they were
brought to Camp Crame handcuffed together, where they
were detained for three days without food and water." [1]
During the trial, the law firm of Luna, Sison and Manas,
filed a special appearance for Scalzo and moved for extension
of time to file an answer pending a supposed advice from the
United States Department of State and Department of Justice
on the defenses to be raised. The trial court granted the
motion. On 27 October 1988, Scalzo filed another special
appearance to quash the summons on the ground that he, not
being a resident of the Philippines and the action being
one in personam, was beyond the processes of the court. The
motion was denied by the court, in its order of 13 December
1988, holding that the filing by Scalzo of a motion for
extension of time to file an answer to the complaint was a
voluntary appearance equivalent to service of summons
which could likewise be construed a waiver of the requirement
of formal notice. Scalzo filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court order, contending that a motion for an extension of
time to file an answer was not a voluntary appearance
equivalent to service of summons since it did not seek an
affirmative relief. Scalzo argued that in cases involving the
United States government, as well as its agencies and
officials, a motion for extension was peculiarly unavoidable
due to the need (1) for both the Department of State and the
Department of Justice to agree on the defenses to be raised
and (2) to refer the case to a Philippine lawyer who would be
expected to first review the case. The court a quo denied the
motion for reconsideration in its order of 15 October 1989.
Scalzo filed a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals, there docketed CA-G.R. No. 17023, assailing the
denial. In a decision, dated 06 October 1989, the appellate
court denied the petition and affirmed the ruling of the trial
court. Scalzo then elevated the incident in a petition for
review on certiorari, docketed G.R. No. 91173, to this
Court. The petition, however, was denied for its failure to
comply with SC Circular No. 1-88; in any event, the Court
added, Scalzo had failed to show that the appellate court was
in error in its questioned judgment.
reason that they are not charged with the duty of representing
their states in political matters. Indeed, the main yardstick
in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled
to immunity is the determination of whether or not he
performs duties of diplomatic nature.
Scalzo asserted, particularly in his Exhibits 9 to 13, that
he was an Assistant Attach of the United States diplomatic
mission and was accredited as such by the Philippine
Government. An attach belongs to a category of officers in the
diplomatic establishment who may be in charge of its cultural,
press, administrative or financial affairs. There could also be a
class of attaches belonging to certain ministries or
departments of the government, other than the foreign
ministry or department, who are detailed by their respective
ministries or departments with the embassies such as the
military, naval, air, commercial, agricultural, labor, science,
and customs attaches, or the like. Attaches assist a chief of
mission in his duties and are administratively under him, but
their main function is to observe, analyze and interpret trends
and developments in their respective fields in the host
country and submit reports to their own ministries or
departments in the home government.[14] These officials are
not generally regarded as members of the diplomatic mission,
nor are they normally designated as having diplomatic rank.
In an attempt to prove his diplomatic status, Scalzo
presented Diplomatic Notes Nos. 414, 757 and 791, all
issued post litem motam, respectively, on 29 May 1990, 25
October 1991 and 17 November 1992. The presentation did
nothing much to alleviate the Court's initial reservations in
G.R. No. 97765, viz:
"While the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, the public
respondent gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Civil
Case No. 88-45691 on the basis of an erroneous assumption
that simply because of the diplomatic note, the private
respondent is clothed with diplomatic immunity, thereby
divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over his person.
xxxxxxxxx
And now, to the core issue - the alleged diplomatic immunity
of the private respondent. Setting aside for the moment the
issue of authenticity raised by the petitioner and the doubts
that surround such claim, in view of the fact that it took
private respondent one (1) year, eight (8) months and
seventeen (17) days from the time his counsel filed on 12
September 1988 a Special Appearance and Motion asking for
a first extension of time to file the Answer because the
Departments of State and Justice of the United States of
America were studying the case for the purpose of
determining his defenses, before he could secure the
Diplomatic Note from the US Embassy in Manila, and even
granting for the sake of argument that such note is authentic,
the complaint for damages filed by petitioner cannot be
peremptorily dismissed.
xxxxxxxxx
"There is of course the claim of private respondent that the
acts imputed to him were done in his official capacity. Nothing
supports this self-serving claim other than the so-called
Diplomatic Note. x x x. The public respondent then should
(T)he doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may
not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his
private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak
of protection afforded the officers and agents of the
government is removed the moment they are sued in their
individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the
public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers
vested in him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public
official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with
malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority
and jurisdiction.[27]
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be
cloaked with immunity from suit but only as long as it can be
established that he is acting within the directives of the
sending state. The consent of the host state is an
indispensable requirement of basic courtesy between the two
sovereigns. Guinto and Shauf both
involve
officers
and
personnel of the United States, stationed within Philippine
territory, under the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. While
evidence is wanting to show any similar agreement between
the governments of the Philippines and of the United States
(for the latter to send its agents and to conduct surveillance
and related activities of suspected drug dealers in the
Philippines), the consent or imprimatur of the Philippine
government to the activities of the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency, however, can be gleaned from the facts
heretofore elsewhere mentioned. The official exchanges of
communication between agencies of the government of the
two countries, certifications from officials of both the
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States
Embassy, as well as the participation of members of the
Philippine Narcotics Command in the buy-bust operation
conducted at the residence of Minucher at the behest of
Scalzo, may be inadequate to support the "diplomatic status"
of the latter but they give enough indication that the
Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if not
consent, to the activities within Philippine territory of agent
Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. The job
description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance
on suspected drug suppliers and, after having ascertained the
target, to inform local law enforcers who would then be
expected to make the arrest. In conducting surveillance
activities on Minucher, later acting as the poseur-buyer during
the buy-bust operation, and then becoming a principal witness
in the criminal case against Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be
said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function or
duties.
All told, this Court is constrained to rule that respondent
Arthur Scalzo, an agent of the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine government to
conduct activities in the country to help contain the problem
on the drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state immunity
from suit.
Republic
SUPREME
Manila
of
the
EN BANC
G.R. No. 76607 February 26, 1990
Philippines
COURT
CRUZ, J.:
These cases have been consolidated because they all involve
the doctrine of state immunity. The United States of America
was not impleaded in the complaints below but has moved to
dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to
which it has not consented. It is now contesting the denial of
its motions by the respondent judges.
In G.R. No. 76607, the private respondents are suing several
officers of the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base in
connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts
for barber services in the said base.
On February 24, 1986, the Western Pacific Contracting Office,
Okinawa Area Exchange, U.S. Air Force, solicited bids for such
contracts through its contracting officer, James F. Shaw.
Among those who submitted their bids were private
dogs were called off and the plaintiffs were immediately taken
to the medical center for treatment of their wounds.
In a motion to dismiss the complaint, the United States of
America and the individually named defendants argued that
the suit was in effect a suit against the United States, which
had not given its consent to be sued. The defendants were
also immune from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts
done by them in the performance of their official functions.
The motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court in its order
dated August 10, 1987, reading in part as follows:
The defendants certainly cannot correctly
argue that they are immune from suit. The
allegations, of the complaint which is sought
to be dismissed, had to be hypothetically
admitted
and
whatever
ground
the
defendants may have, had to be ventilated
during the trial of the case on the merits.
The complaint alleged criminal acts against
the individually-named defendants and from
the nature of said acts it could not be said
that they are Acts of State, for which
immunity should be invoked. If the Filipinos
themselves are duty bound to respect, obey
and submit themselves to the laws of the
country, with more reason, the members of
the United States Armed Forces who are
being treated as guests of this country
should respect, obey and submit themselves
to its laws. 10
and so was the motion for reconsideration. The defendants
submitted their answer as required but subsequently filed
their petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction with this Court. We issued a temporary restraining
order on October 27, 1987. 11
II
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent,
now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987
Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of
international law that we have adopted as part of the law of
our land under Article II, Section 2. This latter provision merely
reiterates a policy earlier embodied in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions and also intended to manifest our resolve to
abide by the rules of the international community.
Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the
generally accepted principles of international law under the
doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by
the majority of states, such principles are deemed
incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition
and consequence of its membership in the society of nations.
Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically
obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with
other states.
As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is
based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that "there
can be no legal right against the authority which makes the
law on which the right depends." 12 There are other practical
Republic
SUPREME
Manila
of
the
Philippines
COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 90314
as
moral
and
its
as
or
as
4) Cost(s) of suit.
SO ORDERED.14
Both parties appealed from the aforecited decision to
respondent Court of Appeals.
In their appeal, plaintiffs-appellants (herein petitioners) raised
the following assignment of errors:
(private
such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against
the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In
the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit
in equity against a State officer or the director of a State
department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the
State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights
of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an
assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit
against the State within the constitutional provision that the
State may not be sued without its consent." 21 The rationale for
this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be
used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.22
In the case of Baer, etc. vs. Tizon, etc., et al., 23 it was ruled
that:
There should be no misinterpretation of the scope of the
decision reached by this Court. Petitioner, as the Commander
of the United States Naval Base in Olongapo, does not
possess diplomatic immunity. He may therefore be proceeded
against in his personal capacity, or when the action taken by
him cannot be imputed to the government which he
represents.
Also, in animos, et al. Vs. Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, et
al.,24 we held that:
"x x x it is equally well-settled that where a litigation may
have adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether
in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public
official proceeded against not being liable in his personal
capacity, then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately
be invoked. It has no application, however, where the suit
against such a functionary had to be instituted because of his
failure to comply with the duty imposed by statute
appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or
petitioner. x x x.
The aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. They state
that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may
not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his
private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak
of protection afforded the officers and agents of the
government is removed the moment they are sued in their
individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the
public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers
vested in him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public
official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with
malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority
or jurisdiction.25
The agents and officials of the United States armed forces
stationed in Clark Air Base are no exception to this rule. In the
case of United States of America, et al. Vs. Guinto, etc., et al.,
ante,26 we declared:
It bears stressing at this point that the above observation do
not confer on the United States of America blanket immunity
for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines. Neither
may the other petitioners claim that they are also insulated
from suit in this country merely because they have acted as
agents of the United States in the discharge of their official
functions.
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 142773. January 28, 2003]
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM,
MANUEL DELIM alias BONG (At Large), ROBERT
DELIM
(At
Large),
and
RONALD
DELIM alias BONG, accused-appellants.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision,
[1]
dated January 14, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
46, Urdaneta City, finding accused-appellants Marlon Delim,
Leon Delim and Ronald Delim guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the
supreme penalty of death. The court also ordered accusedappellants to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the victim
the sums of P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
Accused-appellants Marlon, Ronald and Leon, together
with Manuel alias Bong and Robert, all surnamed Delim, were
indicted for murder under an Information dated May 4, 1999
which reads:
That on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at Brgy.
Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with short
firearms barged-in and entered the house of Modesto Delim
and once inside with intent to kill, treachery, evident
premedidation (sic), conspiring with one another, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab, hold, hogtie,
gag with a piece of cloth, brought out and abduct Modesto
Delim, accused Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the
house guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto
Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of
superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto Delim, to
the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659.[2]
Only accused-appellants Marlon (Bongbong), Leon and
Ronald, all surnamed Delim, were apprehended. Accused
Robert and Manuel remain at-large.
At their arraignment, Marlon, Ronald and Leon, with the
assistance of their counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the trial, the prosecution established the following
relevant facts[3]
Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are
the uncles of Leon Delim and Ronald Delim. Modesto Manalo
Bantas, the victim, was an Igorot and a carpenter. He took the
surname Delim after he was adopted by the father of Marlon,
Manuel and Robert. However, Modestos wife, Rita, an
illiterate, and their 16-year old son, Randy, continued using
Manalo Bantas as their surname. Modesto, Rita and Randy
considered Marlon, Robert, Ronald, Manuel and Leon as their
Q Who else?
A Pepito Pucal, Bernard Osias and Daniel Delim, sir.
COURT: When you found your father, what was his
condition?
A He was dead, sir.
COURT: Go ahead.
FISCAL TOMBOC: You said that he was already
dead, what was his appearance then when
you saw him dead?
A He has bad odor, sir, in the state of decompsition
(sic).[39]
The testimony of Randy was corroborated by Dr. de
Guzman who testified that the cadaver of Modesto was in a
state of decomposition, with tiny white worms crawling from
his wounds, and that his penis and scrotum were
inflamed. The victim sustained five gunshot wounds and
defensive wounds on the left arm and forearm:
PROS. TOMBOC:
Q Will you please tell the Honorable Court your
findings, Doctora?
WITNESS:
A First finding: Upon seeing the cadaver, this is the
position of the body, both upper extremities
are flexed and both lower extremities are
flexed (Nakakukot).
Q How many days had already elapsed when you
autopsied the cadaver of the victim, Doctora?
A Four (4) days upon the recovery of the body, sir.
Q And what was your findings Doctora?
A The body was already under the state of
decomposition, sir, with foul odor and there
were so many worms coming out from the
injuries, there were tiny white worms, sir.
Q What else did you observe Doctora?
A Upon seeing the cadaver I asked the relative to
refer it to the NBI sir. Actually the victim was
an igorot (sic) and they have tradition that
they will bury immediately. Whether they like
it or not I should do it, sir.
Q What else Doctora?
A And the penis was inflammed (sic), the scrotum
was also inflammed (sic), sir.
And for the head injuries there was 10 x 10
ml. GSW pre-auricular area, right; there was
also 20 ml x 20 ml. GSW, mandibular area,
right; I cannot also determine the exit.
Q So there were two (2) gunshot wounds (GSW)
Doctora?
A Yes sir.
And there was also 10 x 10 ml. GSW, maxillary
area, right; there was also 10 x 10 ml. GSW,
below middle nose, directed upward (POE);
and there was also 30 x 40 ml. GSW, mid
parieto-occipital area (POEx).
Q How many all in all are the gunshot wound?
A Five (5) sir.
And also there was 2 x 1 cms. Lacerated wound,
right cheek; 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, axillary
area, left; 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, lateral
aspect M/3rd, left arm; 1 x 1 cm. stabbed
wound lateral aspect D/3rd, left arm; 1 x 1
cm. stabbed wound, medial aspect M/3rd, left
arm; 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, medial aspect
D/3rd, left arm; and #3; 1 x 1 cm. in line with
each other, stabbed wound, medial aspect,
M/3rd, left forearm.
Q How many stabbed wound are there Doctora?
A There were seven (7) stabbed wounds, sir.
Q Those stabbed wounds were defensive wounds,
Doctora?
A Yes sir.[40]
The state of decomposition of the cadaver, with tiny
white worms swarming and feasting on it and the distention of
his scrotum and penis are evidence that the cadaver was in
the stage of putrefaction and that the victim had been dead
for a period ranging from three to six days. [41] Admittedly,
by the trial court and this Court, Marlon, Ronald and Leon are
burdened to prove with clear and convincing evidence that
they were in a place other than the situs criminis at the time
of the commission of the crime; that it was physically
impossible for them to have committed the said crime.
[67]
They failed to discharge their burden. Moreover, Rita and
Randy positively and spontaneously identified Marlon, Ronald
and Leon as the culprits. The house of Ronald, where he
claimed he was when the crime was committed, was only two
kilometers away from the house of Modesto and can be
negotiated by a tricycle. Leon failed to adduce any
documentary evidence to prove his employment by Sally
Asuncion. The barefaced fact that he was a resident of Laoag
City does not constitute proof that he was in Laoag City on the
day of the commission of the crime.With respect to Marlon, he
failed to adduce evidence aside from his self-serving
testimony that he resided in, left Dumaguete City and arrived
in Manila on January 29, 1999.
The trial court convicted Marlon, Ronald and Leon of
murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the
killing of Modesto. The trial court likewise appreciated
nighttime and abuse of superior strength and the use of
unlicensed
firearms
as
separate
aggravating
circumstances. The Office of the Solicitor General contends
that indeed treachery was attendant in the killing of
Modesto. Hence, Marlon, Ronald and Leon are guilty of murder
defined in and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code.
The Court however finds that Marlon, Ronald and Leon
are guilty only of homicide defined in and penalized by Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Qualifying circumstances such as treachery and abuse of
superior strength must be alleged and proved clearly and
conclusively as the crime itself. Mere conjectures, suppositions
or presumptions are utterly insufficient and cannot produce
the effect of qualifying the crime. [68] As this Court held: No
matter how truthful these suppositions or presumptions may
seem, they must not and cannot produce the effect of
aggravating the condition of defendant. [69] Article 14,
paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. For treachery
to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, the
prosecution is burdened to prove the following elements: (a)
the employment of means of execution which gives the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate;
(b) the means of execution is deliberately or consciously
adopted.[70] Although the victim may have been defenseless at
the time he was seized but there is no evidence as to the
particulars of how he was assaulted and killed, treachery
cannot be appreciated against the accused. [71] In this case, the
victim was defenseless when seized by Marlon and
Ronald. However, the prosecution failed to present any
witness or conclusive evidence that Modesto was defenseless
immediately before and when he was attacked and killed. It
cannot be presumed that although he was defenseless when
he was seized the victim was in the same situation when he
was attacked, shot and stabbed by the malefactors. To take
advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force
that is out of proportion to the means of defense available to
the person attacked.[72] What is primordial, this Court held
in People v. Rogelio Francisco[73] is that the assailants
deliberately took advantage of their combined
strength in order to consummate the crime. It is
necessary to show that the malefactors cooperated in such a
way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength.
[74]
In this case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that
Marlon and Ronald deliberately took advantage of their
numerical superiority when Modesto was killed. The barefaced
facts that the malefactors outnumbered Modesto and were
armed while Modesto was not does not constitute proof that
the three took advantage of their numerical superioty and
their handguns when Modesto was shot and stabbed.[75]
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 125909. June 23, 2000]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. HERMOGENES FLORA AND EDWIN FLORA, accusedappellants.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
Accused-appellants seek the reversal of the decision [1] dated
November 7, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26,
Santa Cruz, Laguna, in Criminal Case Nos. SC-4810, 4811 and
4812, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of double murder and attempted murder, and
sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, payment of
P50,000.00 for indemnity, P14,000.00 for burial expenses and
P619,800.00 for loss of earning capacity in Crim. Case SC4810 for the death of Emerita Roma; reclusion perpetua,
payment of P50,000.00 as indemnity, P14,000.00 for burial
expenses and P470,232.00 for loss of earning capacity for the
death of Ireneo Gallarte in Crim. Case SC-4811; and
imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision
correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor and
payment of P15,000.00 to Flor Espinas for injuries sustained in
Crim. Case SC-4812.
On February 26, 1993, Prosecution Attorney Joselito D.R.
Obejas filed three separate informations charging appellants
as follows:
Criminal Case No. 4810
"That on or about January 10, 1993, at
around 1:30 oclock in the morning thereof,
in Sitio Silab, Barangay Longos, municipality
of Kalayaan, province of Laguna, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Hermogenes Flora @ Bodoy,
conspiring and confederating with accused
Edwin Flora @ Boboy, and mutually helping
one another, while conveniently armed then
with a caliber .38 handgun, with intent to
kill, by means of treachery and with evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and shoot with the said firearm one EMERITA
ROMA y DELOS REYES, thereby inflicting
upon the latter gunshot wounds on her
chest which caused her immediate death, to
the damage and prejudice of her surviving
heirs.
That in the commission of the crime, the
aggravating circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation are present." [2]
subcutaneous
tissues
traveling
through
the
anterior chest wall hitting
both lobes of the lungs
and each great blood
vessels
obtaining
the
bullet fragments.
Silab, where the offenses allegedly took place. The sole issue
here, in our view, concerns only the plausibility of the
appellants alibi and the credibility of the witnesses who
identified them as the perpetrators of the crimes charged.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the
accused establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus
delicti at the time the offense was committed, and (2) it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of
its commission.[13] The defense of alibi and the usual
corroboration thereof are disfavored in law since both could
be very easily contrived.[14] In the present case, appellants
alibi is patently self-serving. Although Edwins testimony was
corroborated by his common-law wife, it is ineffectual against
the positive testimonies of eyewitnesses and surviving victims
who contradicted his alibi. Moreover, an alibi becomes less
plausible as a defense when it is invoked and sought to be
crafted mainly by the accused himself and his immediate
relative or relatives.[15] Appellants defense of alibi should have
been corroborated by a disinterested but credible witness.
[16]
Said uncorroborated alibi crumbles in the face of positive
identification made by eyewitnesses.[17]
In their bid for acquittal, appellants contend that they were
not categorically and clearly identified by the witnesses of the
prosecution. They claim that the testimonies of the said
witnesses were not entitled to credence. They assail the
credibility of two eyewitnesses, namely Rosalie Roma and Flor
Espinas, because of the alleged inconsistencies in their
testimonies. For instance, according to appellants, Rosalie
Roma testified she was in the dance hall when the gunshots
were heard, and that she was dancing in the middle of the
dance hall when Hermogenes shot Emerita Roma, Ireneo
Gallarte and Flor Espinas,
"Q....Where were you when Hermogenes
Roma shot these Ireneo Gallarte, Emerita
Roma and Flor Espinas?
A....I was dancing, sir. (Emphasis ours.)
Q....And how far were you from Hermogenes
Flora when he shot these persons while you
were dancing?
A....Two armslength from me only, sir." [18]
However, to a similar question, later in her testimony, she
replied,
"Q....And where were these Emerita Roma,
Your mother, Ireneo Gallarte and Flor
Espinas when Hermogenes Flora shot at
them?
A....They were beside each other.
Q....And how far were you from these 3
persons?
A....Because they were standing beside the
fence and I was only seated near them,
sir."[19] (Emphasis ours.)
FERNAN, C.J.:p
As an aftermath of the mission of the Legazpi City Police
Department to serve on Christmas day in 1970 a search
warrant on Francisco Bello who was allegedly training a
private army, patrolmen Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso
Buenaflor, Jr. were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by
the then Circuit Criminal Court in said city, of killing not only
Bello but also 9-year-old Richard Tiongson and Rosalio Andes
and seriously wounding Maria Theresa Tiongson. The
dispositive portion of the decision of June 13, 1974. 1 reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused
Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. and Daniel Pinto, Jr.
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of crime
of:
(a) MURDER in CCC-X-288Albay,
and
hereby
sentences each of them to
suffer imprisonment for
the rest of their lives
(Reclusion Perpetua); to
indemnify the heir of
Rosalie Andes in the
amount
of
Twenty-five
Thousand
(P25,000.00)
Pesos,
jointly
and
severally; and to pay the
costs;
(b) MURDER in CCC-X-289Albay,
and
hereby
sentences each of them to
suffer imprisonment for
the rest of their lives
(Reclusion Perpetua); to
indemnify the heirs of
Francisco Bello in the
amount
of
Twenty-five
Thousand
(P25,000.00)
Pesos,
jointly
and
"automatic". 22 The firing came from the left rear side of the
jeep. 23
Before they were fired upon, Maria Theresa saw a man lying
flat on his stomach while holding a gun on the left side of the
road just ahead of the jeep. 24 Through the light of the jeep,
Maria Theresa noticed that the man was wearing a jacket and
a hat and he was on the shoulder of the road. 25 After passing
the man, the rapid firing ensued. Richard said "ugh" and fell
on the floor of the jeep. Maria Theresa was about to hold
Richard when she felt herself hit at the buttocks. Then they all
screamed. 26
The jeep continued its fast uphill climb until it reached a level
area and almost fell into a ditch were it not for a clump of
banana plants. The jeep came to a full stop. Fr. Capellan saw
three men with flashlights but he could not distinguish their
faces as it was dark and their flashlights were focused on the
ground. 27 Mrs. Tiongson saw a PC jeep and some cars and,
believing that one of the cars was that of the Mayor, she
called Tia Citang, the mother of the mayor, at the same time
identifying herself.28 She must have managed to take Richard
from the jeep and was cuddling him on the ground near the
left rear end of the jeep when she requested Fr. Capellan to
administer extreme unction on Richard. As Fr. Capellan had no
holy oil, he gave the boy absolution. 29
Even after Mrs. Tiongson had identified herself as the widow
of Col. Tiongson to the men around, nobody listened to her
appeal for help. When she approached Chief of Police
Adornado, she hit him and asked him why they shot her and
her companions. The Chief of Police replied that the shooting
was no longer his fault because Mrs. Tiongson and her
companions did not stop when told to do so. She requested
the Chief of Police for a car in which to take Richard to the
hospital or for a driver and even for a walkie-talkie so she
could talk to Mayor Imperial but the Chief of Police did not
heed her pleas. 30 (TSN, February 9, 1972, pp. 17-22).
A few minutes later, a jeep driven by Fernando Anduiza
arrived. Mrs. Tiongson and her children boarded the jeep. At
the intersection of the road to Legazpi City proper and the
road to Mariawa, the area was brightly lighted and armed men
ordered them to put their hands up. They were told to alight
from the jeep to be searched but Mrs. Tiongson begged the
lieutenant manning the area to let them pass so they could
bring her two children to the hospital. 31
Richard and Maria Theresa were brought to the Sacred Heart
Clinic in Legazpi City. Thirteen-year-old Maria Theresa was
treated for a gunshot wound at the "right upper quadrant of
the right buttocks." 32 Her pelvis and abdomen were x-rayed.
One of the x-ray plates 33 revealed an oval spot indicating a
foreign body in Maria Theresa's pelvis. The attending
physician decided not to extract the foreign body as Maria
Theresa was not a "very good surgical risk".34 The hospital
charged P282.90 for Theresa's hospitalization. 35 She was
later brought by an army plane to the PC Station Hospital in
Camp Crame, Quezon City for further treatment and
hospitalization 36 but the foreign body was never removed
from her pelvic area.
Richard sustained a gunshot wound at the back about the
level of the 5th lumbar vertebrae. The bullet travelled
obliquely to the left kidney, the lesser sac, the liver and the
While Bellos corpse was being autopsied, a slug fell from his
jacket. A bullet jacket and lead fragments were found at the
base of his skull and a slug was extracted from the floor of his
mouth. 60
The slugs and parts of bullets which were extracted from the
bodies of the victims were turned over to the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) on December 29, 1970 by Fiscal Aquilino
Bonto for safekeeping purposes. 62 The empty shells and
slugs which both the PC and the Legazpi City police found in
Talahib were also turned over to the NBI 63 in the same
manner that the four empty carbine shells 64 found by the PC
near the coconut tree a meter from the shoulder of the road to
Mariawa were also turned over to the NBI. 65Also submitted
to the NBI for ballistic examination were twelve Smith &
Wesson caliber .38 revolvers, two Smith & Wesson "paltik"
caliber .22, four Tell caliber revolvers, one Bosque automatic
pistol caliber .380, four carbine Inland rifles caliber .30, three
US Springfield rifles caliber.30, one Thompson submachine
gun caliber .45 and one Colt automatic pistol caliber.45. 66
City police to the effect that they heard Buenaflor's call for
Bello to surrender and that Bello fired his gun at the
appellants. However, all four of them later executed
statements before the NBI retracting said earlier statements
in view of the fact that the police had threatened them to
make the statements favorable to the appellants. 130
As regards the unlawful aggression of Rosalio Andes against
Pinto, we find that if we are to believe Pinto, we have to stamp
full credibility on his statement alone. Even Buenaflor
admitted that he did not see Rosalio Andes attack
Pinto. 131 Inocencia swore that she did not see any weapon
near the fallen Rosalio. Indeed, if the aggression did occur,
Pinto would not have lost time in presenting in court the bolo
which Andes threatened to use on him. But granting that
Rosalio had a bolo, Pinto was not justified in inflicting the
wounds sustained by Rosalio because a mere threatening
attitude of the victim will not constitute unlawful
aggression. 132 Moreover, Pinto's testimony that Rosalio
menacingly approached him with a bolo after Buenaflor had
released a sunburst directed at the house where Bello was, is
contrary to human behavior if not totally ridiculous. On the
contrary, by his own admission, Pinto continued firing until he
saw Rosalio fell.
An accused who admits inflicting fatal injury on his victim and
invokes self-defense must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not only on the weakness of that of the
prosecution for, even if weak, the prosecution evidence gains
more credibility. 133 Unfortunately, in this case, inspire of the
fact that the prosecution had only one eyewitness to the
killing of Bello and Andes, the appellants had not presented
sufficiently strong evidence to shore up their claim of selfdefense.
We agree with the trial court that treachery attended the
commission of all four crimes in this case. The killing of
Richard Tiongson, Francisco Bello and Rosalio Andes as well as
the wounding of Maria Theresa Tiongson were all so sudden
that all of them were left defenseless. This is shown not only
by the testimonial evidence on the commission of the crimes
but also by the nature and location of the wounds of all the
victims. 134 The presence of treachery qualifies the killings to
murder and the wounding of Maria Theresa to frustrated
murder. Nighttime, however, may not be appreciated as there
is no proof that it was specifically sought in the commission of
the crime and therefore we deem it absorbed by treachery.
Evident premeditation has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt in this case but we find that the appellants
indeed took advantage of their public position in perpetrating
the crime. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death. There being no mitigating circumstance to
temper the penalty and there being only the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of their public office under
Article 14 (1) of the said Code, the proper penalty is
death. 135 However, in view the constitutional abolition of the
death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed on the appellants for each of the three murders they
committed.
For the wounding of Maria Theresa, the penalty imposable,
applying Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, isprision
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. There being
years and
maximum.
one
(1)
day
of prision
mayormaximum
as
prosecution,
the
accused,
ORLANDO
ACURAM, is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, of the crime of MURDER,
qualified by treachery, and is meted the
penalty
of reclusion
perpetua and
to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased
ROLANDO MANABAT the jurisprudential sum
of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED."[4]
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 117954. April 27, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ORLANDO ACURAM, accused-appellant.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
On appeal is the decision rendered on August 24, 1994, by the
Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 22, in
Criminal Case No. 91-1161, finding accused-appellant Orlando
Acuram guilty of murder. Supreme
On September 30, 1991, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Benber Apepe charged appellant with the crime of murder,
allegedly committed as follows: Sjcj
"On June 29, 1991, at about 7:00 o'clock in
the evening, at Poblacion, El Salvador,
Misamis Oriental, which is within the
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill
and treachery did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and with the use
of his armalite rifle, shoot at one
Orlando[1] Manabat who was just standing on
the highway waiting for a ride towards
home, thus, hitting and wounding the latter
on the right leg or thigh, which caused his
death the following day.
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article
248, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal
Code.[2]
Upon arraignment appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a
plea of not guilty to the charge.[3] Thereafter, trial on the
merits ensued. Subsequently, the trial court rendered
judgment, disposing as follows: Scjj
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing
facts,
convincingly
proved
by
the
[6]
To begin with, while appellant denies that he fled and hid after
the shooting incident, we find that his behavior proves
otherwise. Appellant admits that he was at the scene of the
crime at the time the shooting happened. Considering that he
is a law enforcement officer, the unusual incident should have
at least elicited his curiosity and he should have inquired
about it. However, he chose to ignore the incident and go his
way.[12] That a policeman could display such indifference to a
crime committed in his presence is highly incredible. While it
was true that he reported for duty the day after the incident,
the following day, he was ordered by his commanding officer
restricted within the camp pending investigation of the case.
By this time, appellant must have learned that his
commanding officer had received a radio message and that
he was already a suspect. As the trial court noted, no superior
officer will hold back from any of his men involved, such a
grave charge. Despite these, appellant did not present himself
before the police in El Salvador, Misamis Oriental. Instead, he
was conveniently nowhere to be found. Misoedp
Thus, appellant's first contention that he is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, in our view, is
quite untenable. The essence of voluntary surrender is
spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up
and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either
because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them
the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture.[13] In this case, it was appellant's commanding officer
who surrendered him to the custody of the court. Being
restrained by one's superiors to stay within the camp without
submitting to the investigating authorities concerned, is not
tantamount to voluntary surrender as contemplated by law.
The trial court is correct in not appreciating the mitigating
circumstance
of
voluntary
surrender
in
appellant's
favor. Misedp
On his second assignment of error, however, we find
convincing merit. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in
concluding that the killing was qualified by treachery. On this
point, we agree. For treachery to be considered an
aggravating circumstance, there must be proof that the
accused consciously adopted a mode of attack to facilitate the
perpetration of the killing without risk to himself. [14] In this
case, the shooting was done at the spur of the moment. As
observed by the trial court, the victim had shouted damning
curses at the driver and the passengers of the jeepney. The
shooting was on instantaneous response to the cursing, as
appellant
correctly
claimed.[15] Treachery
cannot
be
appreciated where the accused shot the victim as a result of a
rash and impetuous impulse rather than from a deliberate act
of the will.[16]
IV
THAT THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING EVIDENCE POINTING TO THE
INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT,
THAT IS, THE EXISTENCE OF EFFICIENT
INTERVENING CAUSE, WHICH IS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF THE
VICTIM."[11]
We shall take up in seriatim the challenges posed by appellant
to the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence for the
prosecution. We shall also consider the weight and credibility
of his defense.
15
falls in this
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 116488. May 31, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. AARON FLORES @ RONITO, SULPECIO
SILPAO y ORTEGA @ SULPING and EDGAR
VILLERAN y MAGBANUA, accused-appellants.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
SO ORDERED.[7]
Two (2) separate appeals were brought before
us. Accused-appellant Sulpecio Silpao raised the following
errors:
I.
committed
simulating
public
seen or heard from since he was last seen with accusedappellants does not prove that he was detained and deprived
of his liberty. The prosecution, however, argues that Samson
Sayam was deprived of his liberty when accused-appellants
forced him to go with them when they left the store of Jerry
Cabrillos and brought him to the detachment headquarters.
We assayed the testimonies of the prosecutions main
witnesses, namely, Carlito Manlangit and his son Jerry
Manlangit. Carlito Manlangits testimony was offered to prove
that Samson Sayam was forcibly taken from the store and that
the latter tried his best to free himself from his abductors. And
yet, all that Carlito testified to was that he saw Samson
Sayam crossing the street alone from the store of a certain
Moleng; that the four accused, who were armed, followed
Sayam and asked for his residence certificate; that the four
accused apprehended Samson Sayam and brought him to the
detachment headquarters; and that he went home after he
saw Samson Sayam talking to the accused. [17]
It is readily apparent that Carlito Manlangits testimony
failed to prove the stated purpose thereof, i.e., that Samson
Sayam was taken forcibly to the detachment headquarters. To
be sure, the witness did not state that Samson Sayam was
pulled, dragged, or coerced to go with accusedappellants. Neither did he say that Samson Sayam was taken
at gunpoint. There is also no relevant testimony to the effect
that Samson Sayam tried his best to free himself from the
clutches of accused-appellants. For if that were the truth, the
reactions of Carlito Manlangit do not conform to human
experience. If he really witnessed Samson Sayam being
apprehended, forcibly taken, and trying to free himself, it
cannot be logically explained why Carlito Manlangit just went
home,[18] instead of doing anything to help Samson Sayam. He
admitted that he did not immediately report the incident to
the authorities.[19] More telling is the absence of testimony to
the effect that Samson Sayam was being taken to the
detachment headquarters against his will, that he was
protesting his apprehension, or that he was asking for help,
considering that there were other people within hearing and
seeing distance. Most damaging is Carlito Manlangits
statement that he did not see Samson Sayam in the
detachment headquarters with any or all of the accused. [20] In
fine, Carlito Manlangits testimony failed to prove that Samson
Sayam was arbitrarily detained or deprived of his liberty.
Jerry Manlangit, son of Carlito, also testified for the
proseuction. According to him, he and Samson Sayam went to
Barangay Tabu to have a sack of palay milled on September
29, 1992. At around six in the evening, while on their way
home, they passed by the store of Terry Cabrillos to buy
kerosene. There, he saw the four accused drinking
beer. Samson Sayam told him to go home because he had to
show his residence certificate and barangay clearance to
accused-appellant
Aaron
Flores. Jerry
Manlangit
then
proceeded to his residence in Hacienda Shangrila, located
about half a kilometer away from the center of Barangay
Tabu. Later, he told his father that Samson Sayam stayed
behind and asked him to fetch Samson. He also testified that
he heard gunshots coming from the direction of the
detachment headquarters.[21]
The testimony of Jerry Manlangit does not prove any of
the elements of the crime of arbitrary detention. Neither does
it support nor corroborate the testimony of his father, Carlito,
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 88043. December 9, 1996]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ANTONIO PAREJA, JOSE TOLEDO and JOHN
DOE, accuseds,
JOSE TOLEDO, accused-appellant.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Senseless killing takes on an almost blas signification in
the instant case, where the accused tried but failed to asport
a TV set and betamax machine, and instead ended up killing a
defenseless person. Attempted robbery with homicide,
committed in the name of a few mundane material
goods. Unfortunately, this is no longer unusual or shocking
nowadays, as it seems that life has become cheap. And thats
precisely what is so painfully tragic for all of us.
Together with Antonio Pareja and one John Doe, herein
accused-appellant
Jose
Toledo
was
charged
before
the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 8, with the
crime of attempted robbery with homicide in an
information[1] which reads as follows:
That on or about the 22 nd day of November, 1986, in the City
of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, with intent of gain,
being then armed with a knife and by means of violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously enter the house of HENEROSO (should be
Generoso) JACOB, by forcibly detaching the bamboo wall of
the kitchen and once inside, threatened the occupants thereof
and demanded for the video machine trade mark betacord,
however Sabina Jacob grabbed the cloth covering the face of
accused Antonio Pareja which caused the latter to scamper
away together with the two other accused and on the
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 133918. September 13, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. TIBOY ALBACIN, accused-appellant.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
For the Navarro family of Lasang, Davao City, the usual
burst of firecrackers on New Year's Eve of 1993 was muted by
the resounding gunshots that snuffed out the life of Teresita
Navarro and wounded her husband, Florencio Navarro. The
accused, Tiboy Albacin, was the author of the dastardly acts.
On March 10, 1994, an information was filed charging
the accused Albacin with murder in Criminal Case No. 33,51294, viz:
"That on or about December 31, 1993, in the City of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-mentioned accused, conspiring, confederating and
helping with (sic) one John Doe, armed with a gun, with
treachery and intent to kill, wilfully (sic), unlawfully and
feloniously shot Teresita G. Navarro, thereby inflicting upon
the latter gunshot wounds which caused her instantaneous
death.
Contrary to law."[1]
On the same day, another information was filed charging
the accused with frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 33,
513-94, viz:
"That on or about December 31, 1993, in the City of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-mentioned accused, conspiring, confederating and
helping with one John Doe, armed with a gun, with treachery
approaching
you. Who
approached you?
The accused was the only person Florencio saw with his
fallen wife immediately after he heard a gunshot from where
his wife was. With the light coming from the moon and
Teresita's torch, Florencio was able to recognize the accused
Albacin who has been his neighbor for more than twenty
years. He testified as follows:
Q: While walking in that position, your daughter ahead of
you 20 meters and your wife 4 meters (sic), you said
you heard a gunshot?
A: Yes, sir, I heard a gunshot.
Q: What was your reaction when you heard that gunshot?
A: I looked at my (sic) back and saw my wife already fell
down.
Q: What else did you see aside from see (sic) your wife
already fell down?
A: What I saw was the same person (sic) and he
approached me.
Q: How many persons did you see aside from your wife?
A: Only one. Later on, there was another one who
approached me.
Q: You said a person, when you turned your back and saw
your wife fell down you saw a person was
that
person
who
is
my
wife
fell
down.
and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
[57]
Jr.,
C.J.,
(Chairman),
EN BANC
Both Jessie and Erlinda affirmed that they were familiar with
the two (2) accused because, like the rest of the family, they were
members of the "Baro a Cristiano" also known as Lamplighter, of
which Fernando "Ando" Costales and Fernando Ramirez were the
high priests in their respective areas. According to Jessie, her
parents decided to quit the brotherhood because Ramirez warned
them not to sever their ties with the sect if they did not want any
harm to befall them. In fact, according to her, a month earlier
Ramirez even threatened her sister Erlinda with bodily harm.
Like her sister, Erlinda stated that their family distanced
themselves from the congregation when Ramirez threatened her
father. According to her, on 16 November 1997, Miguel tried to
fetch her from the house of Ramirez but Miguel relented only after
Ramirez threatened her with a bolo. Her father tried to get her
when he learned that Ramirez was molesting her every time his
wife was away. She however did not report this matter
immediately to the authorities because she feared for her life.
Dr. Alex E. Trinidad, Rural Health Physician of Umingan,
Pangasinan, after conducting an autopsy on the body of Miguel
Marcelo reported: (a) The gunshot wound penetrating the left lobe
of the liver of deceased Miguel Marcelo was fatal; (b) Considering
the trajectory of the gunshot wound, the assailant was probably
pointing slightly downward; (c) The cause of death of the
deceased was internal hemorrhage arising from the gunshot
wound; and, (d) Considering the wound of the victim, he could
have survived for a few minutes after he was shot.
To show that he could not have been a party to the crimes
charged, accused Fernando Costales gave a detailed account of
his activities by retracing his steps from late afternoon of 27
November 1997 until dawn of the following day. He narrated that
at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 27 November he was irrigating
his land in Barangay Libeg, then proceeded to a nearby chapel to
pray. At past 7:00 o'clock in the evening, he went to see a certain
Isidro who was irrigating his own land with the use of his
(Fernando's) water pump. That being done he went back home.
A couple of hours later, in the company of his wife and
children, he returned to the mission house to attend another
religious service. At past 9:00 o'clock that same evening he
dropped by Isidro's farmland to verify if the latter had finished
irrigating. He went back home at around 11:00 o'clock to sleep
and was awakened by Isidro at about 11:45 o'clock only to inform
him that he (Isidro) was through. When Isidro left, Fernando went
back to sleep only to be roused again by Gregorio Baguio who also
wanted to borrow his water pump. With his sleep disrupted, he
decided around midnight to visit as he did the nearby mission
house to pray. Shortly after, he resumed his sleep but woke up
again at 4:00 o'clock in the morning to see if Baguio had already
finished watering his farm.
Defense witnesses Isidro Costales and Gregorio Baguio
corroborated the claim of Fernando Costales that he could not
have perpetrated the crimes as he was with them all the time
they were irrigating their farms. Likewise, Elvie Costales, wife of
accused Fernando Costales, presented an "attendance notebook,"
purportedly prepared by her, showing that her husband, who was
the chapter's religious leader, was worshipping in the Barangay
Libeg chapel from 4:45 to 4:47 o'clock and from 5:30 to 5:37
o'clock at daybreak,[2] from 7:22 to 8:00 o'clock after sunset, [3] and
from 12:10 to 12:15 o'clock midnight [4] of 27 November 1997,
although he would periodically leave the prayer meeting to check
if Isidro had already finished watering his farm so that Baguio
could also use the pump.
But the trial court viewed the alibi of the defense with
askance and assigned full credit to the declarations of the
prosecution witnesses.
In disbelieving the veracity of the "attendance notebook,"
the court a quo opined that Exh. "2" could have been more
impressive had it borne the confirming signatures or thumbmarks
of the"Baro a Cristiano" faithful, including their leader Fernando
Costales, or had Exhs. "2-B" and "2-C" been corroborated on the
witness stand by a less interested member, or had the church
secretary who allegedly kept record of attendance been some
member other that Mrs. Costales or the nearest of kin. [5]
The court below also virtually jettisoned the testimonies of
Isidro Costales and Gregorio Baguio when it said that "they had
every reason to come to the rescue of the accused Costales, their
admittedly common nephew." Further, it pointed out that the
accused and his witnesses issued contradictory and irreconcilable
statements when, on one hand Isidro testified that before
midnight of 27 November 1997 he went to the house of his
nephew Fernando Costales to inform him that the irrigation of his
farm was already through; on the other hand, Baguio claimed that
at around 11:00 o'clock that night he roused the accused who
thereafter went to operate the pump and stayed put beside it until
Baguio's farm was completely irrigated at 4:00 o'clock the next
morning.
The above statements, the court a quo observed, did not
jibe with those made by the accused that his uncle Isidro woke
him up at around 11:45 o'clock in the evening and told him that
the irrigation of his farm was finished, after which he returned to
bed and when he awakened at past 4:00 o'clock the following
morning, he met Baguio who told him that he too was through
irrigating.
In contrast, the trial court saw no dark motives behind the
respective testimonies of Crispina Marcelo and her two (2)
daughters. The Costaleses and the Marcelos used to be members
of the same religious sect and accused "Ando" Costales even
stood as a sponsor at the wedding of Jessie Marcelo, and again
when Crispina's brother got married. In short, the Marcelos could
not have mistaken "Ando" Costales and Fernando Ramirez for
other felons.
In this automatic review, accused Fernando Costales takes
exception to the findings of the trial court and thus seeks reversal
of his convictions on the ground that it erred: (a) in according
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses although
the same are perforated with material inconsistencies and bias;
(b) in not giving weight to the defense of alibi despite the
weakness of the prosecution evidence; (c) in convicting him of
violation of Sec. 1, PD 1866, as amended, since the same was
absorbed in the crime of murder; (d) in finding that the crime was
attended by conspiracy despite the fact that no aggravating
circumstance was established beyond reasonable doubt; and, (e)
in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender in his favor.
The first and second assigned errors will be discussed jointly
since they are interrelated.
Accused-appellant argues that the seemingly flawless and
unwavering testimonies of the three (3) key prosecution witnesses
on the assault of the Marcelo household are obviously biased that
they invite suspicion and disbelief.
Concededly, the prosecution witnesses gave almost uniform
observations on how the malefactors carried out their detestable
crimes, i.e., the identity of the assailants, that Miguel was
strangled by both intruders and almost simultaneously shot on the
head, that one of them sprayed a chemical on the other
occupants of the house and after a split second fired at
Crispina. Such consistency and uniformity may be irregular at first
blush, but accused-appellant failed to take into account the
following factors which account for the "near flawless" statements
of the prosecution witnesses: (a) the one-room shanty was very
small with no substantial obstruction to impede the vision of the
occupants; (b) the room was lighted by a kerosene lamp sufficient
enough for the occupants to recognize accused-appellant and his
cohort, especially so since the assailants were prominent and
venerated leaders of their church; and, (c) at the time of the
incident the Marcelo spouses and their children were lying very
near each other because of the very limited space of their shanty
such that every perceived action could be seen, felt, or at least
sensed, by all of them.
Accused-appellant is seeing ghosts where there is
none. Contrary to his submission, it would be highly irregular
indeed if the prosecution witnesses failed to observe the events
that transpired on that fateful night of 27 November 1997 and
their statements did not dovetail, at least on material points,
despite very favorable conditions for a fairly accurate observation.
Neither should we ascribe importance, as the accusedappellant seems to suggest, to an apparent "inconsistency" by
witness Jessie Molina when she mentioned that the unwanted
intrusion occurred shortly after she turned off the television set,
contrary to her earlier claim that barangay Capas was without
electricity. Jessie Molina dispelled this obscurity when she clarified
that the television set was powered by Motolite battery which is in
fact a common practice in unenergized "barrios," as the trial court
would put it,[6] and Sitio Raniag, Barangay Capas did not still have
electricity at that time.
Clearly, the straightforward and consistent narration of facts,
as the trial court observed, by the three (3) prosecution witnesses,
especially Crispina Marcelo, a victim herself, immensely fortifies
the
conclusion
that
accused-appellant
is
guilty
as
charged. Moreover, no impure motive on their part has been
established by the defense to sully their truthfulness and erode
their credibility.
Accused-appellant cannot insist on his alibi, especially so
since he and his co-accused were positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses. More so when it is undisputed that the
proximity of their place to the scene of the crimes did not preclude
the possibility that they were in fact present at the time of their
commission.
On the third issue, accused-appellant decries the Decision of
the court a quo in qualifying the crimes of murder and attempted
murder with illegal possession of firearm and at the same time
convicting him for violation of PD 1866, as amended.
We agree. Although the prosecution duly established that
the crime of illegal possession of firearm under PD 1866 was
committed, RA 8294, which took effect 7 July 1997, amended the
decree and now considers the use of unlicensed firearm as a
special aggravating circumstance in murder and homicide, and
not as a separate offense.[7]
As it should be, possession and use of firearm without
license should aggravate the crimes of murder and frustrated
murder as herein charged but, fortunately for accused-appellant,
Secs. 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
took effect 1 December 2000, now require the qualifying as well
as aggravating circumstances to be expressly and specifically
alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will
not be considered by the court even if proved during the
trial. Withal, in the absence of any allegation in the Information in
Crim. Case No. T-2057 that accused-appellant committed murder
with the use of unlicensed firearm, the same cannot be
appreciated in imposing the proper penalty.
Moving now to the modifying circumstances raised under the
fourth assigned error, accused-appellant points out that the trial
court grievously erred in appreciating unlicensed firearm, evident
premeditation and nighttime which were alleged in the
Informations in Crim. Case No. T-2056 for frustrated murder and
Crim. Case No. T-2057 for murder.
While we yield to the trial court's finding of treachery, we
take exception to its view that evident premeditation and
nighttime also aggravated the offenses. Without doubt, treachery
has been established by the prosecution evidence which showed
that accused-appellant Fernando Costales and his confederate
Fernando Ramirez swiftly and unexpectedly barged into the
Marcelo residence in the middle of the night, shot Miguel Marcelo
to death as well as his wife Crispina who almost lost her life, and
sprayed a substance which temporarily blinded the other
occupants of the house. The suddenness of the attack gave the
victims no opportunity whatsoever to resist or parry the assault
thereby ensuring the accomplishment of their dastardly deed
without risk to themselves. Since the attack on the victims was
synchronal, sudden and unexpected, treachery must be properly
appreciated.
We cannot however give our assent to the view that
nighttime
and
evident
premeditation
accompanied
the
commission of the crimes. The aggravating circumstance of
nighttime is absorbed by treachery, [8] while evident premeditation
cannot be appreciated in the absence of proof of the planning and
preparation to kill or when the plan was conceived. [9]
The convergence of the wills of the two (2) executioners
amply justifies the imputation that they acted in concert and in
unity in their unlawful objective when in the stillness of the night
they both crashed into the Marcelo residence, strangulated the
victim Miguel, then one of them shot him in the head while the
other sprayed tear gas on the other members of the family
obviously to disable them, and thereafter pumped a bullet at the
horrified Crispina. This series of actions betrays a concerted
design and concurrence of sentiments to cause mayhem and
murder. Accordingly, conspiracy was properly appreciated by the
trial court.
Neither can we sympathize with accused-appellant's
misplaced sentiment that he had been denied the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. As found by the trial court,
his alleged surrender was made too late, and in a place too distant
from the crime site as well as his place of residence. [10]
We observe that the trial court awarded P250,000.00 to the
heirs of the deceased on the justification that the same had been
stipulated upon by the parties. This is patently wrong. Award of
damages is dictated, not by the agreement of the parties;
worse, "in a manner that suits them best," [11] but by the mandate
of law and jurisprudence. Accordingly in conformity with
established law and jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as
civil indmenity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages should
be awarded to the heirs of the victim.
Pursuant to Art. 248 of The Revised Penal Code as amended
by RA 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to
death. There being no modifying circumstances found in Crim.
Case No. T-2057, and applying par. 2 of Art. 63 of the Code, the
lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.