SECOND DIVISION
KINGSTON(E) LI Y
NUNEZ,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
127962
April 14, 2004
-versus-
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
ANDTHE
HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On 19 April 1993, the relative
early morning calm in General Luna Street, Barangay Bangkal, Makati,
was
shattered when a petty argument evolved into a street brawl. After the
dust had settled, eighteen (18) -year old Christopher Arugay ("Arugay")
lay dying from multiple stab wounds, while his neighbor, twenty-four
(24)-year
old Kingstone[1]
Li ("Li"), staggered injured, with hack wounds on his head.
Li was charged before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 148,[2]
with the crime of Homicide.[3]
On 5 January 1994, after trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to
the
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. His
conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals Fifteenth Division in a
Decision[4]
dated 6 September 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The version presented
by the prosecution as to the antecedent facts leading to Arugay’s death
differs sharply from the version offered by Li. The accused claims that
the dispute stemmed from a spurned offer to drink, while the
prosecution
traces the root of the fight to an indecorous bath in public.cralaw:red
The story of the prosecution
was told by the witnesses Aubrey dela Camara ("dela Camara") and
Ronaldo
Tan ("Tan").[5]
Shortly before his death,
Arugay was watching television at home with his sisters Cristy and Baby
Jane, his girlfriend dela Camara and Baby Jane’s boyfriend, Tan. At
around
1:15 in the early morning, dela Camara and Tan suddenly heard a noise
outside.
Peering through the window, they saw Li and a certain Eduardo "Eddie
Boy"
Sangalang taking a bath completely naked. The two were facing the house
of the Arugays.[6]
Enraged, Arugay yelled,
"Pare bastos kayo, ba’t kayo nakahubad?"[7]
Li shouted back, "Putang
Ina!" and threw something at the Arugays’ house. Sangalang also yelled,
"Putang Ina mo, lumabas ka, papatayin kita!"[8]
An incensed Arugay went
out the house where he was met by Li, now wearing briefs and carrying a
baseball bat. Li struck Arugay on the head with the bat, causing Arugay
to fall. Li ran back to his house. Tan and dela Camara assisted Arugay
and were trying to drag him back to his house when Li re-emerged, this
time with a knife. Li then stabbed Arugay once.[9]
Immediately thereafter,
dela Camara was confronted by Li’s sister, Kristine, who proceeded to
pull
her hair and slap her around. Kristine also wielded a bolo, with which
she hacked dela Camara in the arm. Although preoccupied under the
circumstances,
dela Camara was able to see Sangalang stab Arugay at least once, so she
claimed.[10]
Tan saw Arugay run towards
the street after he was stabbed, with Li and Sangalang chasing him. He
saw nothing further of the incident, according to him.[11]
In their respective
testimonies, dela Camara and Tan are unable to account for the fact
that
before the fight ended, Li also lay wounded with multiple hack wounds
on
his head and body. This fact lies at the crux of the petitioner’s
defense.cralaw:red
On the other hand, Li
presents a different version.cralaw:red
Li encountered Arugay
out on the street on the night of 18 April 1993, a few hours before the
brawl. Arugay was carrying a bayong containing various liquors. He
invited
Li to a drinking session which the latter refused as he had work the
following
day.[12]
Early the next morning,
around one o’clock a.m., Li was watching television at his home with
his
friend Ricky Amerol when they heard objects being thrown at the house.
Peeping through the window, they saw Arugay and dela Camara in front of
the gate throwing stones and bottles at the direction of Li’s house.
The
stones broke window jalousies and also struck Amerol. At the same time,
Arugay was also hurling invectives at Li.[13]
Annoyed, Li opened the
door asking, "Pare, ano ba problema mo? Wala naman kaming kasalanan sa
’yo." Arugay and his girlfriend just kept on stoning the house and
hurling
invectives at petitioner. Arugay kicked the gate but Li prevented him
from
opening it. Arugay then ran towards his house across the street.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Li tried to fix the
gate, which had become misaligned and its lock destroyed as a result of
the kicking. Reacting, he saw Arugay coming out of the house armed with
two kitchen knives. In response, Li went inside his house and got a
baseball
bat. When he returned to the street, Arugay attacked him with a knife.
Li managed to avoid Arugay’s thrusts and hit Arugay with the baseball
bat
on the right shoulder. Arugay ran back to his house shouting, "The long
one! The long one!" Li also dashed back to his house but before he was
able to enter the door, he saw Arugay carrying a two-foot long bolo,
running
towards him. On Arugay’s heels were Ronaldo Tan and Aubrey dela Camara.[15]
Arugay tried to hit
Li with the bolo. Li raised his right hand to protect himself but
Arugay
was able to hit him on his right temple and right wrist. Not content,
Arugay
hit Li on the right shoulder. Li passed out.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon regaining consciousness,
Li tried to crawl back to his house but Ronald Tan hit him at the back
of his left ear with a baseball bat. Eventually, Li managed to get back
to the house and was brought to the Makati Medical Center by Amerol and
Barangay Tanod Eduardo Reyes.[17]
On cross-examination,
Li admitted that Eduardo Sangalang was also in his house at the time
the
incident started. Sangalang was the boyfriend of Li’s half-sister,
Cristy.[18]
Dr. Alberto Reyes of
the Medico Legal Section of the National Bureau of Investigation
conducted
the post-mortem examination on the body of Arugay. He noted the
following
injuries:
Pallor, lips and nailbeds.cralaw:red
Contusion, arm, right,
poster-lateral, 5.0 x 3.0 cm.cralaw:red
Wounds, incised, scalp,
parieto-occipital, right, 6.0 cm.; anterior sheet, left side,
suprammary
6.0 cm., inframmary 4.0 cm.cralaw:red
Wounds stab:
1. 3.0 cm., long, spindle[-]shaped
edges, irregular, oriented, horizontally, with a sharp, medial and a
blunt
lateral extremeties, located at the anterior chest wall, left side,
15.0
cm. from the anterior median line, directed upwards, backwards and
medially,
involving the skin and soft tissues only with an approximate depth of
4.0
cm.cralaw:red
2. 4.0 cm., long, spindle
shaped edges irregular, with a sharp inferolateral and blunt
supero-medial
extremeties, located at the anterior abdominal wall, right side, 0.5
cm.
from the anterior median line, directed upwards , backwards and
medially
involving the skin and soft tissues, laceration of the diaphragm and
the
right lobe of the liver, with an approximate depth of 10.0 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. 1.5 cm. long, spindle
shape[d] edges irregular oriented almost horizontally with a sharp
lateral
and blunt medial extremeties, located at the anterior abdominal wall,
left
side, 9.0 cm. from the anterior median line, directed backwards,
upwards
and medially involving the skin and soft tissues, penetrating the
transverse
colon with an approximate depth of 12.0 cm.cralaw:red
4. 1.5 cm. long, spindle,
edges irregular oriented almost horizontally with a sharp
poster-lateral
a blunt antero medial extremities located at the anterior chest wall
right
side, 21.0 cm. from the anterior median line, directed backward,
upwards
and medially involving the skin and soft tissues penetrating the 8th
intercostals
space, into the diaphragm and right lobe of the liver, with an
approximate
depth of 12.0 cm.cralaw:red
Hemoperitoneum – 1,500
c.c.cralaw:red
Brain and other visceral
organs, pale.cralaw:red
Stomach, half-full with
rice and brownish fluid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cause of death – stab
wounds of the chest and abdomen.[19]
After trial on the merits,
the RTC rendered its Decision, finding Li guilty as charged. The
dispositive
portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, and finding accused KINGSTONE LI guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of Homicide defined and penalized under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
FOURTEEN (14) years, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
temporal
as maximum with all the accessories of the law.cralaw:red
The accused is further
ordered to pay to the heirs of the late Christopher Arugay the sum of
P50,000.00
for and as indemnity for causing the death of said victim.cralaw:red
With costs against the
accused.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[20]
Li appealed to the Court
of Appeals but it affirmed with modification the RTC Decision. He filed
a Motion for Reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied.[21]
Li filed the present
Petition for Review, seeking the reversal of his conviction for the
crime
of homicide.cralaw:red
Li denies killing Arugay.
He contends that the RTC erred in holding that he was the instigator of
the events leading to Arugay’s death; in not basing its Decision on the
evidence on record; in holding that he was guilty of homicide by reason
of conspiracy; and in not ruling that the evidence of the prosecution
does
not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[22]
There is a difference
in the factual findings of the RTC and those of the Court of Appeals.
The
variance warrants the close review of the findings of the two courts.
While
both courts argue that Li was guilty of homicide, their respective
rationales
are different.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither court disputes
that the proximate cause of the death of Arugay was the stab wounds he
received. The RTC concluded though that it was Sangalang, and not Li,
who
stabbed Arugay:
From all these conflicting
versions, this court after piecing out the evidence presented and from
what can be deduced in the circumstances obtaining finds that because
of
the altercation between Christopher Arugay and Kingstone Li,
Christopher
Arugay armed himself with a bolo and Kingstone Li armed himself with a
baseball bat.cralaw:red
From the evidence presented,
it became clear to the court that it was Kingstone Li who hit first
with
a baseball bat Christopher Arugay hitting the latter not on the head
but
at the right arm which is near the shoulder.[23]
xxx
Now, after Kingstone
Li has hit the deceased with a baseball bat, the deceased who is armed
with a bolo, retaliated by hacking Kingstone Li on the head and indeed
he was hit on the head and right wrist causing Kingstone Li to lose his
hold on the baseball bat and fell (sic) semi-unconscious or unconscious.cralaw:red
At this point in time,
Eduardo Sangalang, who was then also present stabbed the deceased
several
times at least six times.cralaw:red
This is explained by
the findings of Dr. Alberto Reyes that Christopher Arugay sustained an
incise[d] wound on scalp, on the left chest, and four stab wounds that
are fatal.cralaw:red
When Christopher Arugay
sustained the fatal wounds, two (2) of them piercing his liver xxx[24]
While the RTC concluded
that Li had not stabbed Arugay, it nevertheless held him guilty,
predicated
on a finding of conspiracy with Sangalang. This issue shall be explored
in greater detail later.cralaw:red
In contrast, the Court
of Appeals did not rule out the possibility that Li had stabbed Arugay,
and rendered unnecessary a finding of conspiracy to attach guilt to the
accused. It held:
The deceased suffered
four fatal wounds, then (sic) the accused might have inflicted at least
one fatal stab wound and so with his friend Eddie Boy, who remains at
large.
Since it has not been established which wound was inflicted by either
one
of them, they should both be held liable and each one is guilty of
homicide,
whether or not a conspiracy exists.[25]
(Emphasis supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellate court’s
formulation is wrong as the converse is the correct rule: with the
existence
of conspiracy, it is no longer necessary to determine who among the
malefactors
rendered the fatal blow;[26]
whereas in the absence of conspiracy, each of the accused is
responsible
only for the consequences of his own acts.[27]
Thus, it is necessary to determine whether a conspiracy existed between
Li and Sangalang, and if there was none, to ascertain the particular
acts
performed by Li.cralaw:red
The Court of Appeals
also cited the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Tan and dela
Camara,
to the effect that they saw Li stab Arugay at the left portion of the
body.[28]
These testimonies are vital as they constitute the only evidence that
Li
actually stabbed Arugay. A careful examination of the case however
cautions
us from giving full faith and credence to the supposed eyewitnesses for
the prosecution. The RTC itself cast doubt on the veracity of all the
eyewitness
testimony, whether for the prosecution or for the accused. The RTC
noted,
thus:
At the outset, the court
has to state that it has noted that the witnesses for the prosecution
and
that of the defense either held back on material facts or have
deliberately
withheld some facts or added some matters to the real facts for these
are
not only gaps but holes in the versions of the witnesses for the
prosecution
and the defense. What this court can do is to cull from the evidence
presented
what could be the approximate or near the truth. The prosecution did
not
help this court any to have a good view of the facts and neither the
defense.[29]
The relationships of
the witnesses dela Camara and Tan to Arugay or the latter’s family
cannot
be easily discounted. Dela Camara was the boyfriend of Arugay, while
Tan
was the boyfriend of Arugay’s sister, Baby Jane. As such, they are not
wholly neutral or disinterested witnesses. Both of them actually
asserted
in open court that they were not willing to say anything derogatory
against
Arugay. Tan testified as follows:
Q: Since Jane Arugay
is your girlfriend, and Christopher Arugay was your friend, you did not
like to say anything derogatory against Christopher Arugay, did you?
A: Yes, maam.cralaw:red
Q: Neither did you want
to say anything also derogatory against the family of Christopher
Arugay,
did you?
A: Yes, maam.[30]
Similarly, dela Camara
testified
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: As the girlfriend
of Christopher Arugay, you did not say anything derogatory [about] the
said Christopher Arugay, am I correct?
A: Yes, maam.cralaw:red
Q: You do not like to
besmirch his memory, am I correct?
A: Yes, maam.cralaw:red
Q: So that if Christopher
Arugay assaulted Kingstone Li on April 19, 1993, you did not like this,
do you know that, did you Ms. Dela Camara.cralaw:red
A: Yes, maam.[31]
The revelations serve
caution against accepting the testimonies of Tan and dela Camara as
gospel
truth. They cast doubt as to whether these witnesses would be capable
to
attest to an unbiased narration of facts, especially if by doing so,
they
would be forced to impute culpability on Arugay, thereby staining the
sainted
memory of their deceased friend.cralaw:red
Moreover, the respective
testimonies of dela Camara and Tan are inconsistent with each other
with
respect to material points. Dela Camara claimed that she and Tan
together
assisted Arugay after the latter had been struck down with the baseball
bat.[32]
Yet while Tan admitted that he had pulled Arugay away from the scene of
the melee, he made no mention of the assistance of dela Camara.[33]
In fact, Tan stated that dela Camara remained inside the house.[34]
This assertion contradicts dela Camara’s claim that she was outside the
house during the whole time the incident transpired.[35]
Nor did Tan advert to the scene painted by dela Camara of Kristine Li
wielding
a bolo while pulling on the hair of Arugay’s girlfriend. That is an
unusual
enough occurrence that would stick to the mind of anybody who would
witness
such.cralaw:red
Indeed, the tale weaved
by Tan arouses more curiousity upon examination of his sworn statement,
executed the night after the incident. Therein, Tan referred to some
existing
bad blood between Arugay and Li over a borrowed tape, a fact which
subsequently
none of the parties would call attention to.[36]
Curioser, Tan never mentioned any baseball bat having been used by Li
during
the incident. Nor did he mention any participation of Sangalang in the
actual brawl. On the other hand, dela Camara in her own sworn
statement,
asserted that both Li and Sangalang had stabbed Arugay and that she
herself
was hacked on the arm by Kristine Li.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Both Tan and dela Camara
testified that Li stabbed Arugay on the left side of the body as the
latter
was being pulled towards his house after having been struck with the
baseball
bat.[38]
However, Tan testified that Li came from behind Arugay to inflict the
stab
wound,[39]
while dela Camara stated that Arugay was facing Li when he was stabbed.[40]
Most importantly, the
testimonies of dela Camara and Tan both contradict the physical
evidence.
As consistently held:
Time and again, we have
upheld the primacy of physical evidence over biased and uncorroborated
testimony of witnesses. We have held:
…Physical evidence is
a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our
hierarchy
of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where
the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this Court has,
in many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in
ascertaining
the truth…[W]here the physical evidence on record ran counter to the
testimonial
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the physical
evidence
should prevail.[41]
It is undisputed that
Li had armed himself with a baseball bat as he prepared to face Arugay.
It also appears that the baseball bat remained at the scene of the
fight,
as the same weapon was used to strike Li on the head after he lay
injured.[42]
In order to sustain the claim of Tan and dela Camara that Li had
stabbed
Arugay, we would have to postulate that Li was armed with both a knife
and a baseball bat. This scenario is severely flawed.cralaw:red
First. Tan and dela
Camara would have us believe that Li faced off Arugay with a baseball
bat,
then after having struck Arugay, he ran off to his home to get a knife,
returned to the melee, then stabbed Arugay.[43]
This projected sequence is simply incredulous. Li was already armed
with
a weapon that could incapacitate or kill. He had already struck a blow
that apparently forced the victim down. There is no logical reason for
Li to suddenly run off to get a knife, considering he already had a
weapon
capable of inflicting damage and was at an advantageous position
vis-à-vis
the prostrate Arugay.cralaw:red
There is of course the
possibility that Li was already carrying the knife when he emerged with
the baseball bat, but that was not established by the prosecution.
Moreover,
the scenario of Li brandishing a knife with one hand and wielding a bat
with the other is highly improbable. It would require unusual physical
dexterity for a person to wield both weapons simultaneously and still
utilize
them with adequate proficiency. Nor is it likely that Li concealed the
knife in his clothing. According to Tan, Li was only wearing briefs
when
he attacked Arugay with the baseball bat.[44]
Second. The pathological
findings likewise cast severe doubt on the possibility that Li had
stabbed
Arugay. The trial court concluded that only one knife was used in
killing
Arugay, and probably only one wielder thereof. The RTC decision said:
The court noted also
with particular interest the description of the four wounds as found by
Dr. Reyes. The first wound has been described by Dr. Reyes as 3.0 cm.
long,
spindle[-]shaped edges, irregular, etc; the No. 2 wound has also been
described
as 4.0 cm. long, spindle[-] shaped, edges irregular, etc.; No. 3 wound
is 1.5 cm. long, spindle-shaped, edges, irregular, etc.; and the fourth
wound is 1.5 cm. long, spindle shaped edges irregular;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus there are two (2)
outstanding characteristics of the four (4) stab wounds sustained by
Christopher
Arugay. All of them are spindle[-]shaped and irregular in their edges.
This is significant because it would appear to the court that only one
weapon was used because all the characteristics of the four wounds were
the same. Thus, to the mind of the court there is only one person who
inflicted
these wounds, not two (2) or three (3). It could be possible that there
were two who inflicted the stab wound[s] if the weapon used was given
to
another after using the same and the other one to whom it was
transferred
used it also. But in this case there is no showing that such incident
did
happen.[45]
It must be qualified
that Dr. Reyes, the NBI Medico-Legal, refused to definitively conclude
that only one knife was used in stabbing Arugay though he conceded that
such was possible.[46]
Nevertheless, the fact that Arugay sustained the same kind of stab
wounds
tends to support the conclusion that only one knife was used on him.cralaw:red
Third. Dela Camara testified
that she saw both Li and Sangalang stab Arugay. Considering that there
was only one knife used, her version would hold water only if we were
to
assume that the same knife passed from the hands of Li to Sangalang or
that they held identical or similar knives. As the RTC ruled, nothing
of
the sort was established. The more logical assumption would be that
there
was only one stabber using one knife. The question now arises, was it
Li
or Sangalang who stabbed Arugay?
There is the dubious
claim of Tan and dela Camara that they did see Li stab Arugay once.
Assuming
this were true, this blow would not have been the fatal stab wound, as
it did not prevent Arugay from further participating in the rumble and,
as subsequently established, inflicting damaging blows on Li. However,
the physical evidence belies any conclusion that Li inflicted any of
the
several fatal wounds on Arugay.cralaw:red
Dr. Pedro P. Solis,
the medico-legal consultant of Makati Medical Center who also happens
to
be one of the country’s leading experts in Legal Medicine,[47]
examined Li’s injuries on the same day of the incident, and
subsequently
testified on his findings. He concluded that Li suffered three types of
wounds on his body. The first type consisted of abrasions, consistent
with
forcible contact accompanied by a hard object. The two other types of
injuries
were considerably more serious: incised wounds and a contusion. As
found
by the RTC:
According to (sic) Dr.
Pedro Solis, who examined the accused at the Makati Medical Center on
the
very night after the incident and (sic) found the following injuries on
Kingstone Li, to wit:
1. xxx
2. Wound, incised, 12
cm., scalp, fronto-parietal area, right, 9 cm., right; 9 cm. posterior
aspect, shoulder, right; 1.5 cm., postero-medial aspect, distal third,
forearm, right.cralaw:red
3. Contusion, 4 x 5
cm., scalp, parieto-occipital area (post suricular) left.cralaw:red
From the expert testimony
and opinion of Dr. Pedro Solis, the injuries suffered by Kingstone Li
were
defense wounds, and that there were two (2) weapons used in inflicting
injuries on Kingstone Li. One is a sharp edge[d] instrument such as a
bolo
and the other one is [a] blunt instrument.[48]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The physical evidence
of Li’s injuries are consistent with his version that Arugay had hacked
him, and as he struggled to recover from the blow, he was struck with
his
own baseball bat by Tan, thus explaining the contusion on his head.
More
importantly though, the injuries were serious enough to incapacitate Li
at the scene, calling into question his ability to inflict the fatal
blows
on Arugay. As Dr. Solis testified:
A: [I] noticed in this
particular case that there are incise[d] wound[s] on the right hand and
right shoulder. These are injuries brought about, as I said, brought
about
by [a] sharp edged instrument. This I presumed to have been brought
about
by the inherent self defensive (sic) mechanism of the victim. In so far
as the injury on the head is concerned, it must be a hit, now, I am
referring
to the incise wound on the head, incise[d] wound on the head will also
cause pressure on the skull thereby producing some effect on the brain,
this has been aggravated by a blunt instrument applied on the left side
of his neck and joining as together the two injuries the incise[d]
wounds
and that of contusion which is brought about by blunt instrument it
might
have cause[d] him some degree of loss of consciousness.cralaw:red
Q: Would that person
have been able to stab somebody one time, two times, three times or
four
times after sustaining those injuries?
A: In that condition
he has no complete power to perform volitional acts because he must
have
lost partially or totally his consciousness primarily the hit on the
left
side of the head because the brain is a vital organ and slight jarring
will cause los[s] of consciousness and what we call in ordinary
parlance,
you saw shooting stars as a consequence.cralaw:red
Q: Aside from los[s]
of consciousness, would that person who sustained that injury have been
able to walk without the assistance of anybody?
A: In all [likelihood],
he might have lost I said of his volitional movement, he [may be] able
to walk but as I have observe[d] it must be with assistance more
particularly
in this case whereby the incise wound on the head is measured 12 cm.,
the
head is a bloody organ in a way that if a person is erect, blood will
flow
on that area and it might cause even modification of his visual
perception.[49]
Li was slashed on the
head with a bolo, causing a twelve centimeter (12 cm.)-wound, among
other
wounds. In such a condition, it is highly improbable that he was
capable
of inflicting the fatal stab wounds on Arugay. Moreover, it could not
be
established that Li was ever armed with a knife. Difficult as it is
already
to believe that the wounded Li could have stabbed Arugay several times,
the incredulity is compounded by imagining that Li would have also
groped
around for a knife, dazed and severely wounded as he was. Simply put,
Li
could not have stabbed Arugay. The assertions to the contrary of Tan
and
dela Camara are inherently flawed.cralaw:red
Fourth. In all, the
factual determination made by the RTC is wholly believable up to a
point.
There were four participants in the brawl, namely Li, Sangalang, Arugay
and Tan. The first blow was struck by Li, who had armed himself with a
baseball bat and used the same to hit Arugay on the left upper arm.
This
unprovoked assault by Li establishes at least some degree of criminal
culpability
on his part. Arugay then armed himself with a bolo which he used to
inflict
an incised wound on the head of Li. After Li had fallen, Sangalang,
himself
armed with a knife, fatally stabbed Arugay at least four times. Tan had
picked up the baseball bat dropped by the wounded Li and struck Li on
the
head with the bat. These findings are consistent with the physical
evidence,
reliance on which should be given greater primacy over the unreliable
eyewitness
testimony of Tan and dela Camara.cralaw:red
Thus, Sangalang alone
had stabbed Christopher Arugay. Yet the RTC still found Li guilty on
the
tenuous determination that a conspiracy between Li and Sangalang
existed.
The RTC held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the evidence presented,
the court believes and it so holds that there was conspiracy.cralaw:red
It must be pointed out
that Kingstone Li and Eduardo Sangalang were then in the same house at
the same time. Eduardo Sangalang is the boyfriend of the half-sister of
Kingtone Li.cralaw:red
The act of Kingstone
Li [in] getting a baseball bat and using it as a weapon and the act of
Eduardo Sangalang alias Eddie Boy in arming himself with a sharp
pointed
weapon and both going out to meet Christopher Arugay whose only sin is
to point to the accused his scandalous and indecent act in bathing nude
not in the bathroom but in a place which is crowded by people who can
see
him especially the ladies and is provocative to others are patent and
conclusive
presumption of conspiracy for their acts were concerted and so close to
each other that there is no way but to conclude a conspiracy.[50]
(Emphasis not ours)
Proving conspiracy is
a dicey matter, especially difficult in cases such as the present
wherein
the criminal acts arose spontaneously, as opposed to instances wherein
the participants would have the opportunity to orchestrate a more
deliberate
plan. Spontaneity alone does not preclude the establishment of
conspiracy,
which after all, can be consummated in a moment’s notice – through a
single
word of assent to a proposal or an unambiguous handshake. Yet it is
more
difficult to presume conspiracy in extemporaneous outbursts of
violence;
hence, the demand that it be established by positive evidence. A
conviction
premised on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on
mere
inferences and presumption.[51]
It is worth noting that
while conspiracy was alleged in the Information against Li, the
prosecution
devoted its efforts to prove that Li had actually inflicted the stab
wounds
on Sangalang, tagging him as a direct participant in the crime. Thus,
there
seems to be no evidence that would directly establish the fact that Li
and Sangalang had come into an agreement to commit a common felony. Any
conclusion that there was a conspiracy will have to be drawn
inferentially,
as the RTC did.cralaw:red
It is not necessary
to prove a previous agreement to commit a crime if there is proof that
the malefactors have acted in concert and in pursuance of the common
objectives.
Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy since it is by its
nature
often planned in utmost secrecy and it can seldom be proved by direct
evidence.[52]
Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when
such point to a joint purpose and design.[53]
Complicity may be determined by concert of action at the moment of
consummating
the crime and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to
the
person inflicting the fatal wound.[54]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, caution dictates
a careful examination of the established facts before concluding, as
the
RTC did, that an implied conspiracy had been established. An implied
conspiracy
must still be based on facts established by positive and conclusive
evidence.[55]
Even if conspiracy per se is not criminal, as it rarely is in this
jurisdiction,[56]
the weight of factual evidence necessary to prove conspiracy is the
same
as required to establish criminal liability – proof beyond reasonable
doubt.[57]
Suppositions based on mere presumptions and not on solid facts do not
constitute
proof beyond reasonable doubt.[58]
The RTC’s conclusion
that there was a conspiracy was drawn from these circumstances, namely:
that Li and Sangalang were in the same house at the same time; and that
they both armed themselves before going out to meet Arugay. The fact
that
they were in the same house at the same time is not in itself
sufficient
to establish conspiracy. Conspiracy transcends companionship,[59]
and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount
to
conspiracy.[60]
The other circumstance
that Li and Sangalang had emerged from Li’s house, both armed, to face
Arugay has to be weighed against other facts also relied upon by the
RTC.
As the RTC held, Sangalang stabbed Arugay only after petitioner had
become
unconscious. Before that point, even as Li struck Arugay with a
baseball
bat, it was not proven that Li had asked for, or received, any
assistance
from Sangalang. Based on these circumstances, the Court is hard put to
conclude that Sangalang and Li had acted in concert to commit the
offense.
In fact, the stabbing of Arugay could very well be construed as a
spur-of-the-moment
reaction by Sangalang upon seeing that his friend Li was struck on the
head by Arugay. From such a spontaneous reaction, a finding of
conspiracy
cannot arise.[61]
Moreover, it appears
that the fight involved two distinct phases. The first phase commenced
when Li, without sufficient provocation, assaulted Arugay with the
baseball
bat. Li’s participation in this phase, albeit as a solitary actor, was
indubitably established. Sangalang’s participation, much less his
physical
presence during this phase, was not established at all. In the second
phase,
Sangalang was the main actor. Li was incapacitated by then. Clearly,
the
existence of conspiracy should be ruled out.cralaw:red
After Arugay had been
struck down, it appears that there would have been a lapse of at least
a few minutes, affording him time to procure the bolo. The second phase
in the brawl then commenced. No further blows appear to have been
inflicted
by Li. On the other hand, Li himself became the victim of the hack
wounds
on the head inflicted
by Arugay. As Li lay
incapacitated, possibly unconscious, it remained highly doubtful
whether
he had any further participation in the brawl. At that point,
Sangalang,
whose previous participation was not conclusively established, emerged
into the fray. Sangalang stabbed Arugay to death. Verily, it cannot be
assumed that Sangalang did what he did with the knowledge or assent of
Li, much more in coordination with each other.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The scenario as established
by the RTC still leaves many open-ended questions and admits to a
myriad
of possibilities. This very uncertainty indicates that Li’s liability
as
a conspirator was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The general
principle in criminal law is that all doubts should be resolved in
favor
of the accused. Consequently, when confronted with variant though
equally
plausible versions of events, the version that is in accord with the
acquittal
or the least liability of the accused should be favored.cralaw:red
The only injury attributable
to Li is the contusion on the victim’s right arm that resulted from Li
striking Arugay with a baseball bat. In view of the victim’s
supervening
death from injuries which cannot be attributed to Li beyond reasonable
doubt, the effects of the contusion caused by Li are not mortal or at
least
lie entirely in the realm of speculation. When there is no evidence of
actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the required
medical
attendance, the offense is only slight physical injuries, penalized as
follows:
Art. 266. Slight physical
injuries and maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical injuries
shall
be punished:
….cralaw:red
2. By aresto menor or
a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused
physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging
in his habitual work nor require medical attendance.[62]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The duration of the
penalty of arresto menor is from one day to thirty days.[63]
The felony of slight physical injuries is necessarily included in the
homicide
charge. Since the Information against Li states that among the means
employed
to commit the felonious act was the use of the baseball bat, conviction
on the lesser offense of slight physical injuries is proper. There
being
no aggravating or mitigating circumstances established, the imposition
of the penalty in its medium period is warranted.[64]
Li was convicted by the RTC on January 5, 1994. Having long served more
than the imposable penalty, Li is entitled to immediate release unless,
of course, he is being lawfully detained for another cause.cralaw:red
What transpired during
the dawn hours of 19 April 1993 was an artless, spontaneous street
fight
devoid of any methodical plan for consummation. It arose not because of
any long-standing grudge or an appreciable vindication of honor, but
because
the actors were too quick to offense and impervious to reason. Yet,
however
senseless this lethal imbroglio is, a judicious examination of the
circumstances
must be made to avoid leaps into hyperbole. Careful scrutiny of the
evidence
reveals that the criminal culpability of Kingstone Li in the death of
Christopher
Arugay was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the
person who is responsible for the death apparently remains at large.
Yet
absent any clear showing of conspiracy, as in this case, Kingstone Li
cannot
answer for the crime of Eduardo Sangalang.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. Petitioner Kingstone Li is
ACQUITTED
of the charge of Homicide for lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
However, he is found GUILTY of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES,
as
defined and punished by Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, and
accordingly
sentenced to suffer the penalty of arresto menor in the medium period
of
ten (10) to twenty (20) days. Considering that petitioner has been
incarcerated
well-beyond the period of the penalty herein imposed, the Director of
the
Bureau of Prisons is ordered to cause petitioner’s IMMEDIATE RELEASE,
unless
petitioner is being lawfully held for another cause, and to INFORM this
Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the
compliance
with such order.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Petitioner is identified in his Petition for Review as "Kingston Li",
yet
the case records, as well as the assailed lower court decisions, give
his
name as "Kingstone Li".
[2]
Presided by Judge Oscar Pimentel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
The accusatory portion of the Information reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That
on or about the 19th day of April 1993, in the Municipality of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
with
one alias Eddie Boy whose true identity and present whereabout (sic) is
still unknown and mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with a
fan knife (balisong) and baseball bat, with intent to kill, did then
and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
one
CHRISTOPHER ARUGAY y RAMIREZ, on the left side of his body, thereby
inflicting
upon the latter stab wounds which directly caused his death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY
TO LAW. See Records, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Penned by the late Justice Maximiano Asuncion, Jr., and concurred in by
Justices Salome A. Montoya and Godardo A. Jacinto.
[5]
See TSNs dated 20 July 1993 and 20 September 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, 13 July 1993, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Id. at 21.
[10]
TSN, 20 September 1993, p. 49.
[11]
TSN, 13 July 1993, p. 27.
[12]
TSN dated 20 October 1993, pp. 7-8.
[13]
Id. at 11.
[14]
Id. at 15.
[15]
Id. at 16-21.
[16]
Id. at 27.
[17]
Id. at 29-30.
[18]
See TSN, 20 October 1993, pp. 46-47.
[19]
Records, pp. 37-38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Records, p. 46.
[21]
See Rollo, p. 79.
[22]
Rollo, p. 30.
[23]
Records, p. 41.
[24]
Records, p. 43.
[25]
Rollo, p. 74.
[26]
People v. Dindo, G.R. No. 129305, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 492,
497-498.
[27]
See U.S. v. Abiog and Abiog, 37 Phil. 131, 140 (1917); People v.
Tamayo,
44 Phil. 38, 47-49 (1922); People v. Tividad, 126 Phil. 913, 920 (1967).
[28]
Rollo, p. 71.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Records, p. 35.
[30]
TSN, 20 July 1993, pp. 6-7.
[31]
TSN, 20 September 1993, p. 44.
[32]
Id. at 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN, 13 July 1993, pp. 19-20.
[34]
TSN, 20 July 1993, p. 21.
[35]
See TSN, 20 September 1993, p. 41.
[36]
RTC Records, p. 5.
[37]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Interestingly, Tan testified as to Arugay’s purported stabbing by Li
during
his direct examination in the following manner:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q:
According to you that while you were dragging along Mr. Christopher
Arugay
towards their house the accused came back with a knife and stabbed
Christopher
Arugay, is that right?
A:
Yes sir, Kingstone Li stabbed Christopher Arugay in the left portion of
his body. (TSN, 13 July 1993, p. 21)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It
is quite clear from the above that the admission came from Tan after
having
been prompted by a blatantly leading question, which unfortunately, was
not objected to by defense counsel. This is but another circumstance
that
cast doubt on the objective credibility of the testimony of the
supposed
eyewitnesses for the prosecution.
[39]
TSN, 13 July 1993, p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
TSN, 20 September 1993, p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People v. Roche, G.R. No. 115182, 6 April 2000, 330 SCRA 93, citing
Jose
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118441-42, 18 January 2000, 322 SCRA 25.
[42]
Rollo, p. 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
See Records, pp. 14, 36.
[44]
Records, p. 14.
[45]
Records, pp. 38-39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
TSN dated 16 September 1993, p. 14.
[47]
Dr. Solis was the author of the widely-used standard textbooks,
"Medical
Jurisprudence" and "Legal Medicine," among others.
[48]
Records, pp. 39-40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
TSN, 27 October 1993, pp. 12-14.
[50]
Records, p. 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
People v. Halili, G.R. No. 108662, 27 June 1995, 245 SCRA 340, 352.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
People v. Peralta, 134 Phil. 703, 722 (1968); citing People v. Cadag,
L-13830,
31 May 1961 and People v. Romualdez, 57 Phil. 148 (1932).
[53]
See, e.g., People v. Saul, G.R. No. 124809, 19 December 2001, 372 SCRA
636, 646.
[54]
People v. Mozar, 215 Phil. 501, 511 (1984).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
People v. Furugganan, G.R. No. 90191-96, 28 January 1991, 193 SCRA 481,
citing People v. Drilon, 123 SCRA 72 (1983); People v. Martinez, 127
SCRA
260 (1984).
[56]
Under the Revised Penal Code, the very act of conspiracy itself is
punishable
as a separate crime only in cases of conspiracy to commit treason, coup
d’etat, rebellion or insurrection. See Arts. 115 and 136, Revised Penal
Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
People v. Furugganan, supra note 46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
People v. De Vera, 371 Phil. 563, 581. (1999). "The conspiracy itself
must
be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself."
People
v. Saul, supra note 44.
[59]
People v. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, 28 May 2001, 358 SCRA 266, 272.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
People v. Dindo, G.R. No. 129305, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 492,
497-498.
See also People v. Campos, 202 SCRA 387, 3 October 1991.
[61]
"If the tragedy was a chance stabbing, there can be no conspiracy to
speak
of." People v. Agapinay, G.R. No. 77776, 27 June 1990, 186 SCRA 812,
821.
[62]
See People v. Fortich, G.R. Nos. 80399-404, 13 November 1997, 281 SCRA
600.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
See Article 27, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
See Article 64, par. (1), Revised Penal Code. |