To prove the fact and cause of death of Eusebio Gardon, Accused: Givera, et al. the prosecution presented in evidence the testimony of Victim: Gardon + medico-legal officer Baltazar. Crime: Murder | SC Verdict: Conviction On August 29, 1997, the trial court rendered its FACTS decision finding Givera guilty of murder. In this case, the Quezon City RTC Branch 102 found Cesar Givera guilty of the murder of Eusebio Gardon ISSUE (Pertinent only, all other issues placed under the y Arrivas. Annex part) Whether or not the arrest of Givera was without any GIVERA CONSIPIRED WITH OTHER MEN TO warrant and was therefore invalid (NO) KILL EUSEBIO GARDON The information in this case alleged that on or about the HELD 2nd day of May, 1993, in Quezon City, Cesar Givera, GIVERA, THOUGH ARRESTED ON MAY 4, 1996, conspiring together, confederating with Epifanio WAS ARRESTED BY VIRTUE OF A WARRANT Gayon and Arturo Gayon willfully, unlawfully and ISSUED BY THE COURT ON APRIL 27, 1995 feloniously, with intent to kill, taking advantage of Givera claims that his arrest at the East Avenue Medical superior strength, with evident premeditation and Center on May 4, 1996 was made without a warrant. This treachery, attack, assault, and employ personal violence is not true. He was arrested by virtue of a warrant upon Eusebio Gardon by then and there stabbing him issued by the court on April 27, 1995. However, as the with a knife hitting him on the different parts of his records show, the warrant of arrest was returned body, and striking him with a piece of stone on the unserved by the arresting officer on June 7, 1995 as head, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal accused-appellant could not be found. He was finally wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his found only on May 4, 1996. untimely death. KEY TAKE-AWAY DOCTRINE: Givera pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on Now, no alias warrant of arrest is needed to make the April 10, 1996, whereupon he was tried. arrest. Unless specifically provided in the warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled PROSECUTION PRESENTED MILAGROS or quashed. The ten-day period provided in Rule 113, GARDON AND MELINDA DELFIN AS 4 is only a directive to the officer executing the WITNESSES warrant to make a return to the court. The prosecution presented the victim's daughter Milagros Gardon and his niece Melinda Delfin as witnesses. On GIVERA DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS RIGHT the other hand, only accused-appellant testified in his At any rate, accused-appellant must be deemed to defense. have waived his right to object thereto because he failed to move for the quashal of the information MILAGROS GARDONS TESTIMONY before the trial court, entered a plea of not guilty and The incident took place at about 4 p.m. on May 2, 1993 participated in the trial. As this Court has held, any at Purok IV, Area 5, Laura St., Old Balara, in Diliman, objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in Quezon City. Milagros Gardon testified that during that the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the time, her father Gardon was sleeping in their house and person of an accused must be made before he enters his Givera, along with other men, was stoning their residence plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. knowing that Gardon will not come out. Givera earlier warned Gardon that he would kill him if the latter goes ANNEX outside. She recounted that Epifanio Gayon entered their Whether or not due to the presence of reasonable house and led her father Gardon outside. She pointed out doubt, the RTC has committed an error in convicting that when her father was already outside their house, Givera of the crime charged (NO) Cesar scampered away and her father ran after him until they reached a place where there was another person who 1. PROSECUTION PRESENTED EVIDENCE stabbed her father. Then Cesar scampered away and her WHICH SHOWS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT father followed him. Cesar caused her father to run after THAT GIVERA AND HIS COMPANIONS KILLED him until they reached the place where there was another GARDON person, and that person stabbed my father. The prosecution presented evidence which shows beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant and his MELINDA DELFINS TESTIMONY companions (Epifanio Gayon, Arturo Gayon, and Melinda Delfin, niece of the Gardon, corroborated the Maximo Givera), all of whom were convicted of murder testimony of Milagros Gardon. She said that she saw in another case, were responsible for the killing of Givera box Gardon outside their house. Epifanio also Eusebio Gardon on May 2, 1993. joined Givera in boxing Gardon. The two then ran which caused Givera to follow them. Melinda recounted that not Milagros Gardon's testimony, an excerpt from which far away, another man who was waiting for Gardon is quoted at the beginning of this opinion, is
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE
spontaneous, detailed, arid consistent. The defense yan!," Maximo stabbed the victim. tried to discredit it through cross examination, but, as shown earlier, the defense only succeeded in enabling her The evidence thus clearly and convincingly shows a to give further details of her testimony in chief. There are coordinated action by the group in the execution of apparent lapses in the testimony of Milagros, as when she the crime. In conspiracy, it is not necessary to show testified that she knew at the very beginning, that it was that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the accused-appellant who was stoning their house when in victim. What is important is that all participants fact, as she admitted, she only knew this because the performed specific acts with such closeness and victim said so. coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the In any event, these discrepancies are minor and victim. The act of each conspirator in furtherance of the insignificant and do not detract from the substance of common purpose is in contemplation of law the act of all. her testimony. Milagros' testimony belies Giveras claim Consonant with this legal principle, accused-appellant is that he was merely trying to pacify the victim and guilty of the crime of murder as if he himself dealt the Maximo Givera and that he ran away because the victim's deathblow that sent the victim to his grave. son, armed with a bolo, charged at him (Givera). There was no reason for the victim's son to want to attack ********** accused-appellant, if the latter was merely trying to help 3. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND the victim. TREACHERY CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED BUT ABUSE OF SUPERIORITY WAS ESTABLISHED Nor is it probable that Givera did not see what his Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in this companions did to the victim aside from giving him fist case. Where conspiracy is directly established, with proof blows and kicks, because according to accused-appellant, of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, he ran away shortly after they had attacked the victim. As time and means of executing the crime, the existence of accused-appellant said he saw the assailants run way, this evident premeditation can be appreciated. But in an could only be after they had been done with their victim. implied conspiracy, such as in this case, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in the absence of The defense also tries to discredit the testimony of the proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim other prosecution witness, Melinda Delfin. It is was hatched or what time elapsed before it was contended that, contrary to her claim, she was not really carried out, so that it cannot be determined if the present at the incident. For this purpose, it is pointed out accused had "sufficient time between its inception and that she failed to give a sworn statement regarding said its fulfillment dispassionately to consider and accept incident to the police. the consequences." There should be a showing that the accused had the opportunity for reflection and persisted The contention has no merit. As Melinda explained, in effectuating his criminal design which the prosecution she did not give a statement to the police because she failed to establish in the case at bar. was told they would call on her later for her statement. Nor can the qualifying circumstance of treachery be taken into account. Treachery is the deliberate and It is noteworthy that both Milagros Gardon and unexpected attack on the victim, without any warning Melinda Delfin knew accused-appellant and the other and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself assailants, and that in fact some of them are related to or repel the initial assault. For treachery to be the witnesses. appreciated, it must be shown to be present at the inception of the attack, otherwise, even if present at a [T]he court has no reason to doubt the testimonies of the subsequent stage, it cannot be considered. In the instant prosecution witnesses. case, the victim cannot be said to have been totally oblivious of the impending attack by all the group of ********** accused-appellant. He thus had every opportunity to 2. ALLEGATIONS OF CONSPIRACY HAVE BEEN escape from the attack. In fact, his daughter Milagros ESTABLISHED testified that prior to the stoning incident, the victim The victim was at home sleeping after coming from a had been threatened with harm by accused-appellant drinking session, when the accused-appellant and his the moment he went out of his house, which is why companions stoned his house to force him to come out. she stayed beside her father to make sure he did not When they failed, one of them, Epifanio (Onying) go out of the house. Indeed, the victim had been Gayon, went inside the victim's house and told him to forewarned of the danger posed by accused-appellant come out. Disoriented because he was drunk, the victim and his group. went with Onying. Once the victim was outside, accused- appellant pelted him with stones, while Onying started Moreover, by coming out of his house and running after raining fistic blows on him. Then Onying and accused- two of the assailants, the victim showed that he was appellant ran away to lure him to go toward the bridge prepared for the attack by Givera and his gang and could where the other two, Arturo Gayon and Maximo Givera, have been hardly surprised when he was actually were waiting. When the victim reached the place, he was attacked. Treachery must be proven by convincing attacked by the gang. He was kicked and boxed by evidence. Onying and when Arturo shouted "Sige todasin na
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE
However, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superiority was correctly appreciated in this case. The victim was unarmed and was clearly outnumbered by the four assailants, with one of them armed with a knife. JC