EN BANC
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 149028-30
April 2, 2003
-versus-
ARMANDO
CABALLERO,
RICARDO CABALLERO,
MARCIANO
CABALLERO, JR., AND ROBITO
CABALLERO,
Accused.
ARMANDO
CABALLERO,
RICARDO CABALLERO,
AND MARCIANO
CABALLERO,
JR.,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Before the Court on
automatic review is the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental,
Branch
57, convicting appellants Armando Caballero, Ricardo Caballero and
Marciano
Caballero, Jr. of murder in Criminal Cases Nos. RTC-1217 and RTC-1218
and
meting on each of them the supreme penalty of death and ordering them
to
pay damages; and of frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. RTC-1219 and
imposing on them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
The Antecedents
Teresito (Dodong) Mondragon
and his family lived in a compound surrounded by a barbed-wire fence at
New Sumakwel, Broce Street, San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental.
Living in the same compound were Ricardo Caballero and his family; and
Myrna Bawin, the sister of Eugene Tayactac, and her family. Beside the
compound was the house of Leonilo Broce, a nephew of Wilma Broce.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the afternoon of
August 3, 1994, Armando (Baby), Robito (Bebot) and Marciano, Jr. (Jun),
all surnamed Caballero, were having a drinking spree in the house of
their
brother Ricardo in the Mondragon Compound. At about 7:00 p.m. of said
date,
Eugene Tayactac and Arnold Barcuma arrived in the sari-sari store of
Wilma
Broce which was across the Mondragon Compound. Eugene had dinner in the
store while Arnold proceeded to the house of Susana Broce, Eugene’s
girlfriend,
for a chat. Susana’s house was about 15 meters away from the
store
of Wilma. Momentarily, Armando arrived in the store and asked Eugene in
an angry tone: "Gene mopalit ka?" (Gene, will you buy?). Eugene
replied:
"What is this all about? We don’t have any quarrel between
us."
Armando left the store but stood by the gate of the barbed-wired fence
of the Mondragon Compound. His brothers Ricardo, Robito and Marciano,
Jr.
joined him. Ricardo and Robito were armed with knives. When Wilma
told Eugene that she was closing the store already, he stood up and
left
the store on his way to Susana’s house. At that time, Myrna Bawin, who
was standing by the window of their house saw her brother Eugene going
out of the store and proceeding to the house of Susana. She
called
out to him and advised him to go home. Myrna then left the window
to pacify her crying baby.cralaw:red
As Eugene walked by
the gate of the Mondragon Compound, Armando suddenly grabbed Eugene
towards
the compound. Eugene resisted. Spontaneously, Ricardo,
Marciano,
Jr. and Robito joined Armando and assaulted Eugene. Armando took
the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit Eugene with
it.
The latter tried to parry the blows of the Caballero brothers, to no
avail.
In the process, Eugene was stabbed three times. As Eugene was being
assaulted,
Myrna returned to the window of her house and saw the Caballero
brothers
assaulting Eugene. She shouted for help for her hapless
brother.
Wilma, who witnessed the whole incident, was shocked to immobility at
the
sudden turn of events.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the nearby house
of Susana, Arnold saw the commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify
the
protagonists. Arnold told the Caballero brothers: "Bay, what is
the
trouble between you and Eugene?" However, Ricardo accosted Arnold
and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. Forthwith,
Robito,
Marciano, Jr. and Armando ganged up on Arnold. Two of them stabbed
Arnold
on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hid under the house
of a neighbor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, Leonilo
rushed from his house to where the commotion was. He was, however, met
by Robito who stabbed him on the chest. Wounded, Leonilo retreated and
pleaded to his uncle Lucio Broce for help: "Tio, help me because I am
hit."
The commotion stopped only upon the arrival of Teresito Mondragon who
was
able to pacify the Caballero brothers. They all returned to the
compound.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, Lucio
Broce, the uncle of Leonilo brought the injured Eugene, Leonilo and
Arnold
to the Planters Hospital for medical treatment. Eugene and
Leonilo
eventually died from the stab wounds they sustained.cralaw:red
Dr. Filped A. Maisog
performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Eugene. He signed a
postmortem
report containing the following findings:
POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Name: Eugenio
Tayactac, 22 years old, male, single
Address: New Sumakwel,
San Carlos City, Neg. Occ.cralaw:red
Place of Incident:
New Sumakwel, San Carlos City, Neg. Occ.cralaw:red
Place of Examination:
San Carlos City Hospital
Date & Time of Incident:
August 3, 1994 @ 8:30 P.M.cralaw:red
Date & Time Examined:
August 3, 1994 @ 10:40 P.M.cralaw:red
Post-Mortem Findings:
Stab
wound (L) anterior chest 2 cm. 5th ICS MCL directed postero laterally,
lacerating (L) auricle of the heart, and the (L) pulmonary artery and
the
left middle lobe of the lungs;
Stab
wound (R) anterior chest 2 cm. long 5th ICS parasternal line directed
posteriorly;
Stab
wound (R) posterior chest level 7th ICS 2 cm. long directed anteriorly.cralaw:red
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Severe Hemorrhage secondary to Multiple Stab wounds with Massive
Hemothorax
(L) and Hemopneumothorax (R).[2]
He testified that the
stab wounds could have been caused by a sharp-edged single-bladed or
double-bladed
instrument, or by three instruments.[3]
Dr. Jose Carlos L. Villarante
performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Leonilo. He signed a
postmortem
report containing the following findings:
POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION
Name: Leonilo
Broce, 22 years old, male, married
Address: New Sumakwel,
San Carlos City, Neg. Occ.cralaw:red
Place of Incident:
New Sumakwel, San Carlos City, Neg. Occ.cralaw:red
Place of Examination:
San Carlos City Hospital
Date & Time of Incident:
Aug. 3, 1994 @ 8:30 P.M.cralaw:red
Date & Time
Examined: Aug. 3, 1994 @ 8:45 P.M.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Post-mortem findings:
Stab
wound, (R) post chest, about the level of the 6th and 7th RICS, post.
axillary
line.cralaw:red
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ injury.[4]
Dr. Edgardo B. Quisumbing
attended to and operated on Arnold Barcuma. He signed a medical
certificate
stating that Arnold sustained the following injuries:
Lacerated
wound 2 cm. (R) forearm middle 3rd
Incised
wound 2 inches (L) forearm middle 3rd
Stabbed
wound, 2 inches in length (L) chest, anterior axillary line at the
level
of the 7th intercostal space, penetrating thoracic cavity and abdominal
cavity[5]
On the witness stand,
Dr. Quisumbing testified that the wounds sustained by Arnold could have
been caused by three different sharp-pointed instruments.[6]
He further testified that Arnold would have died because of the stab
wound
on his chest, were it not for the timely medical intervention.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 5, 1994, Armando,
Ricardo, Marciano, Jr. and Robito, were charged with Murder for the
death
of Leonilo Broce. The Information, docketed as Criminal Case No.
RTC 1217 reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about 8:00
o’clock, P.M., August 3, 1994 at New Sumakwel, San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and helping one
another,
armed with pieces of wood and hunting knives, and with intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there,
wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of said weapons, attack,
assault
and use personal violence upon the person of one LEONILO BROCE, by
striking
the latter with the use of pieces of wood and stabbing him, thereby
inflicting
upon said Leonilo Broce physical injury described as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stabbed
wound (R) chest penetrating thoracic cavity and which injury
caused
massive hemorrhage which resulted to the death of Leonilo Broce.cralaw:red
That an aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength is attendant in the
commission
of the offense.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
They were also charged
with the same crime for the death of Eugene Tayactac in an Information
docketed as Criminal Case No. RTC-1218, which reads:
That on or about 8:00
o’clock, P.M., August 3, 1994 at New Sumakwel, San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and helping one
another,
armed with pieces of wood and hunting knives, and with intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there,
wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of said weapons, attack,
assault
and use personal violence upon the person of one EUGENE TAYACTAC, by
striking
the latter with use of pieces of wood and stabbing him thereby
inflicting
upon said Eugene Tayactac physical injuries which resulted to the death
of the latter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That an aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superior strength is attendant in the
commission
of the offense.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
Another Information
was filed against the Caballero brothers for frustrated murder for the
injuries of Arnold Barcuma. Docketed as Criminal Case No.
RTC-1219,
it reads:
That on or about 8:00
o’clock, P.M., August 3, 1994 at New Sumakwel, San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and helping one
another,
armed with pieces of wood and hunting knives, with intent to kill, with
treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
person
of one ARNOLD BARCUMA, by striking him with the use of pieces of
wood and stabbing him, thereby inflicting upon the latter physical
injuries
which would have resulted to the death of said Arnold Barcuma, thus
performing
all the acts of execution, which would have produced the crime of
"Murder",
as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it, by reason
of causes independent of the will of the accused that is, the timely
medical
assistance rendered to said Arnold Barcuma.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That an aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength is attendant in the
commission
of the offense.[9]
Ricardo, Armando and
Marciano, Jr., assisted by counsel, were arraigned on September 15,
1994.
They pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Robito Caballero
remained
at-large.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ricardo, Armando and
Marciano, Jr. invoked the defenses of denial and alibi. They
adduced
evidence that Ricardo was employed as electrician in the Office of the
City Engineer of San Carlos City. Armando was a motor cab
driver.
Robito resided in H.C. Rigor Street, San Carlos City while Marciano,
Jr.
was a resident of Don Juan Subdivision, San Carlos City and was
employed
with the Victorias Milling Corporation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 3, 1994, at
8:00 a.m., Robito left San Carlos City and went to Bacolod City.
Armando went to the house of his brother Ricardo to help in the
construction
of the latter’s house and to take care of Ricardo’s fighting cocks
while
he was in his office. Ricardo arrived home at 8:00 p.m. and had
dinner
with his family and Armando. Momentarily, their sister Mila and
their
younger brother Marciano, Jr. arrived in the house of Ricardo.
Marciano,
Jr. allegedly was mauled by a group of men and sustained an abrasion, a
contusion and swelling of the left side of his face. Ricardo and
Armando brought their brother Marciano, Jr. to the hospital for
treatment.
On August 4, 1994, Marciano, Jr. was treated for:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Linear
abrasion (L) scapula region;
Contusion
(R) lower lip lateral side;
Swelling
left face.cralaw:red
No. of days of healing:
5-7 days barring complication.[10]
Ricardo, Armando and
Marciano, Jr. denied killing Eugene and assaulting Arnold. They
also
denied having any altercation with the victims. They also denied
stabbing
Leonilo. They had no idea why Wilma, Arnold and Myrna would implicate
them
for the deaths of Leonilo and Eugene and for the injuries of Arnold.cralaw:red
After due proceedings,
the trial court rendered judgment on May 7, 2001 finding all the three
accused, now appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals
of the crimes charged, the decretal portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, accused Armando
Caballero, alias "Baby", Ricardo Caballero, alias "Ricky" and Marciano
Caballero, Jr., alias "Jun", having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the offenses charged them as principals, are hereby sentenced
to suffer:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. In Criminal
Case No. RTC-1217 for the murder of Leonilo Broce, there being no
mitigating
circumstance present, with the attendant aggravating circumstances of
treachery
and abuse of superior strength, the maximum penalty of death and to pay
the heirs of Leonilo Broce the sum of P75,000.00 as indemnity;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. In Criminal
Case No. RTC-1218, for the murder of Eugene or Eugenio Tayactac, there
being no mitigating circumstance present, with the attendant
aggravating
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, the maximum
penalty of death; and to pay the heirs of Eugene Tayactac the sum of
P75,000.00
as indemnity; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. In Criminal
Case No. RTC-1219, for Frustrated Murder, for having seriously
inflicted
injuries upon the person of Arnold Barcuma which nearly resulted to his
death, there being no mitigating circumstance present, an imprisonment
of twelve (12) years, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months
and one (1) day, with no award as to damages, no evidence having been
introduced
to establish, the same; and
4. To pay the
costs in all three (3) cases.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[11]
In convicting the accused,
the trial court found that all of them conspired to kill Eugene and
Leonilo
and cause injuries to Arnold. While the trial court stated that
it
was only appellant Armando who stabbed Eugene, and only the accused
Robito
who stabbed Leonilo, however, it concluded that all of them were
equally
liable for the deaths of Leonilo and Eugene and for the injuries of
Arnold.cralaw:red
In their Brief, the
accused, now appellants assail the decision of the trial court
contending
that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 1217-1219
DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THEIR GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY AND
ABUSE
OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT INDEED ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
KILLED
THE VICTIMS.
III
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY UPON ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ON THE
ASSUMPTION
THAT INDEED THEY KILLED THE VICTIMS.[12]
The Court will delve
into and resolve the first two assignments of errors.cralaw:red
The appellants aver
that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt their
respective
guilt for the deaths of Eugene and Leonilo and for the injuries
sustained
by Arnold. They assert that the trial court committed reversible
error in rejecting their defenses of denial and alibi. They claim
that at the time of the incident they were in the San Carlos Hospital
for
the treatment of the injuries of appellant Marciano, Jr.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellants are partly
correct.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court
correctly
found that all the appellants conspired to kill Eugene and assault
Arnold;
hence, they are criminally liable for the death of Eugene and for the
injuries
sustained by Arnold. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a
felony
and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is always predominantly
mental
in composition because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and
intent.[13]
Conspiracy must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the
crime
itself, that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[14]
However, direct proof is not required. Conspiracy may be proved
by
circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy may be proved through the
collective
acts of the accused, before, during and after the commission of a
felony,
all the accused aiming at the same object, one performing one part and
another performing another for the attainment of the same objective,
their
acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and
cooperative,
indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and
concurrence
of sentiments.[15]
The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active
participation
in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral
assistance
to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the
criminal
plan.[16]
Direct proof of a person in agreement to commit a crime is not
necessary.
It is enough that at the time of the commission of a crime, all the
malefactors
had the same purpose and were united in their execution.[17]
Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as
co-principals
regardless of the degree of participation of each of them for in
contemplation
of the law, the act of one is the act of all.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Criminal conspiracy
must always be founded on facts, not on mere inferences, conjectures
and
presumptions.[19]Mere knowledge, acquiescence
to or
approval of the act without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is
not
enough to constitute one party to a conspiracy absent the intentional
participation
in the act with a view to the furtherance of the common objective and
purpose.[20]
Moreover, one is not criminally liable for his act done outside the
contemplation
of the conspirators. Co-conspirators are criminally liable only
for
acts done pursuant to the conspiring on how and what are the necessary
and logic consequence of the intended crime.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, when appellant
Armando asked Eugene at the store of Wilma whether the latter was going
to buy something from the store, Eugene was peeved and remonstrated
that
he and Armando had no quarrel between them. Appellant Armando was
likewise irked at the reaction of Eugene because from the store,
appellant
Armando stationed himself by the gate of the Mondragon Compound near
the
sari-sari store of Wilma. Appellants Ricardo, Marciano, Jr. and
Robito
joined their brother, appellant Armando at the gate. Appellant
Ricardo
and accused Robito were armed with knives. When Eugene passed by
the gate to the compound, appellant Armando pulled Eugene to the gate
but
when the latter resisted, all the appellants ganged up on Eugene.
Appellant Armando took the wooden support of the clothesline and hit
Eugene
with it. Eugene was stabbed three times on his chest even as he
tried
to parry the thrusts. When Arnold rushed to the situs criminis to
pacify the appellants and accused Robito, appellant Ricardo stabbed him
on the left side of his body. The other appellants and accused
Robito
joined appellant Ricardo and ganged up on Arnold. They stabbed Arnold
anew
twice on his forearm. Teresito Mondragon, the father-in-law of
appellant
Ricardo intervened and forthwith, all the appellants, including accused
Robito returned to the Mondragon Compound. Patently, all the appellants
by their simultaneous collective acts before and after the commission
of
the crimes were united in one common objective, to kill Eugene, and
cause
injuries to Arnold for trying to intervene and prevent bloodshed.
Hence, all the appellants are criminally liable for the death of Eugene
and for the injuries of Arnold. It does not matter who among the
appellants stabbed Eugene or inflicted injuries on Arnold. The
act
of one is the act of the others.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, for the death
of Leonilo, the Court believes that the appellants are not criminally
liable.
The prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the appellants and the
accused
Robito conspired to kill Leonilo. The appellants did not actually
see Leonilo rushing out from his house to the situs criminis. They had
no foreknowledge that the accused Robito would stab Leonilo.
There
was no evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that all the
appellants
assisted the accused Robito in killing Leonilo. It must be recalled
that
Leonilo rushed out of his house when he saw the commotion, with the
intention
of aiding the victim or pacifying the protagonists. He was,
however,
stopped by accused Robito who suddenly stabbed him on the chest.
Leonilo retreated and asked for help. Wilma Broce testified that
only the accused Robito stabbed Leonilo:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
After that, what happened next?
A
Leonilo Broce came out of his house.cralaw:red
Q
Where is the house of Leonilo Broce?
A
Still located at Sumakwel.cralaw:red
Q
In that case, the very house where Eugene Tayaktak leaned on when he
was
ganged up by the four?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
What happened after that?
A
When he came out from the house and saw that it was Eugene Tayaktak, he
proceeded to approach them but he was not able to approach them because
he was met by Robit "Bebot" Caballero and stabbed by Robito Caballero.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Was LeoniloBroce (sic) hit when he was stabbed by Robito Caballero?
A
Yes. He immediately ran back and said: "Tio, help me
because
I am hit."
INTERPRETER’S (observation)
Witness demonstrating
by holding her left armpit.cralaw:red
Q
Was Eugene Tayaktak able to escape from the attach (sic) of the
Caballero
brothers?
A
Not (sic).cralaw:red
Q
Now what happened to Eugene Tayaktak?
A
He appeared very weak and he was staggering.cralaw:red
Q
Do you know where Eugene Tayaktak now?
A
Already dead.cralaw:red
Q
What happened to Leonilo Broce, where is he now?
A
The two of them were (sic) already dead.cralaw:red
Q
Now, when did the trouble stop if it stopped?
A
It stopped when Dodong Mondragon arrived.cralaw:red
Q
What did the accused do after the trouble was stopped?
A
They went inside the compound of his (sic) father.cralaw:red
Q
What happened next?
A
Nothing happened. Both of them were brought to the hospital.[22]
In sum, the trial court
committed reversible error in convicting the appellants of murder for
the
death of Leonilo. As this Court held in People v. Flora:[23]
However, we cannot find
Edwin Flora similarly responsible for the death of Emerita Roma and the
injury of Flor Espinas. The evidence only shows conspiracy to
kill
Ireneo Gallarte and no one else. For acts done outside the
contemplation
of the conspirators only the actual perpetrators are
liable.
In People v. De la Cerna, 21 SCRA 569, 570 (1967), we held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"And the rule has always
been that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant
to the conspiracy. For other acts done outside the contemplation
of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical
consequence
of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable.
Here,
only Serapio killed (sic) Casiano Cabizares. The latter was not
even
going to the aid of his father Rafael but was fleeing away when shot."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To conclude, appellant
Edwin Flora is guilty beyond reasonable doubt only of the murder of
Ireneo
Gallarte. He has no liability for the death of Emerita Roma nor
the
injuries of Flor Espinas caused by his co-accused Hermogenes Flora.cralaw:red
Crimes Committed by
Appellants
In Criminal Case No.
RTC-1218, the appellants are guilty as co-principals by direct
participation
of murder, qualified by treachery. In order that treachery may be
considered
as a qualifying circumstance, the prosecution is burdened to prove
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) the employment
of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to
defend
himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was
deliberately
or consciously adopted.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even a frontal attack
is treacherous if it is sudden and the victim is unarmed. The
essence
of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim.[25]
In this case, Eugene
was unarmed. He had no inkling that he would be waylaid as he
sauntered
on his way to his girlfriend Susana’s house. On the other hand,
appellant
Armando was armed with a wooden pole while appellant Ricardo and
accused
Robito were armed with knives. The attack on the hapless Eugene
was
swift and unannounced. Undeniably, the appellants killed Eugene
with
treachery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case No.
RTC-1219, the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder under Article
248 in relation to Article 6, first paragraph of the Revised Penal Code
which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A felony is consummated
when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts
of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The essential elements
of a frustrated felony are as follows:
Elements:
1.
The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2.
All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
3.
But the felony is not produced;
4.
By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.[26]
In the leading case
of United States v. Eduave,[27]
Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court, distinguished an attempted
from
frustrated felony. He said that to be an attempted crime the
purpose
of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which
intervenes
and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all
the
acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which act it is
his
intention to perform.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The subjective phase
in the commission of a crime is that portion of the acts constituting
the
crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime
and the last act performed by the offender which, with prior acts,
should
result in the consummated crime. Thereafter, the phase is objective.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In case of an attempted
crime, the offender never passes the subjective phase in the commission
of the crime. The offender does not arrive at the point of
performing
all of the acts of execution which should produce the crime. He
is
stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his voluntary
desistance.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand,
a crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of
execution
which should result in the consummation of the crime. The
offender
has passed the subjective phase in the commission of the crime.
Subjectively,
the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while
passing
through the subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to
consummate
the crime. However, the crime is not consummated by reason of the
intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender. In
homicide
cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution
if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the
death
of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If one inflicts physical
injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is
either
consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill
the victim or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or
attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim.
Intent
to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature
or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the
nature
and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime
was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the
injuries
are inflicted by him on the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, appellant
Armando was armed with a wooden pole. Appellant Ricardo and
accused
Robito used knives. Dr. Quisumbing, who attended to and operated
on Arnold, testified that the stab wound sustained by Arnold on the
left
side of his body was mortal and could have caused his death were it not
for the timely and effective medical intervention:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
And how about the size and the depth of the wounds and how big is each
wound and how deep.cralaw:red
A
The first wound is 2 cm. and the 2nd is about 2 inches and the 3rd is 2
inches in the left, penetrating the chest near the thorax along the
lateral
line.cralaw:red
Q
So, aside from the 3rd wound there are wounds which are not really very
serious?
A
As I said before, the most serious is the 3rd wound.cralaw:red
Q
So even without the other wounds the 3rd wound - it could be the
cause of the death of the victim?
A
Yes, Sir.[29]
It cannot be denied
that the appellants had the intention to kill Arnold. The appellants
performed
all the acts of execution but the crime was not consummated because of
the timely medical intervention.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Treachery attended the
stabbing of Arnold because he was unarmed and the attack on him was
swift
and sudden. He had no means and there was no time for him to
defend
himself. In sum, the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellants’ denial
of the crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. RTC-1218 and RTC-1219
cannot
prevail over Wilma’s and Arnold’s positive and straightforward
testimonies
that the appellants killed Eugene and stabbed Arnold. Moreover,
Wilma
and Arnold had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants for the
said
crimes; hence, their testimony must be accorded full probative weight.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Equally barren of merit
is appellants’ defense of alibi. Alibi as a defense is inherently weak
for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. To merit
approbation,
the appellants were burdened to prove with clear and convincing
evidence
that at the time the crimes were committed, they were in a place other
than the situs of the crimes such that it was physically impossible for
them to have committed said crimes.[31]
The appellants dismally failed in this respect. They testified
that
they were at the house of appellant Ricardo, which was conveniently
near
the place where Eugene was killed and Arnold was assaulted.
Moreover,
the records show that Marciano, Jr. was treated for his superficial
injuries
on August 4, 1996, a day after the incident. This belies the
claim
of appellants Ricardo and Armando that they were allegedly in the
hospital
at the time of the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Penalties Imposable
on Appellantschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court imposed
the death penalty on appellants in Criminal Case No. RTC-1218 on its
finding
that treachery and abuse of superior strength were attendant in the
killing
of Eugene. The Solicitor General does not agree with the trial
court
and contends that abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery;
hence, should not be considered as a separate aggravating circumstance
in the imposition of the penalty on the appellants. The Court
agrees
with the Solicitor General. Abuse of superior strength,
concurring
with treachery is absorbed by treachery.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The penalty for murder
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
7659, is reclusion perpetua to death. Since aside from the
qualified
circumstance of treachery, no other modifying circumstance was
attendant
in the commission of the crime, the proper penalty for the crime is
reclusion
perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case No.
RTC-1219, for frustrated murder, the Solicitor General contends that
the
indeterminate penalty of from 12 years of reclusion temporal as
minimum,
to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum,
imposed
on the appellants is not correct. The Court agrees with the
Solicitor
General. The penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower
than
reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal.[33]
The latter penalty has a range of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
The maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from reclusion
temporal, the penalty for the crime taking into account any modifying
circumstances
in the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate
penalty shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor which is
one
degree lower than reclusion temporal. Since there is no modifying
circumstance in the commission of frustrated murder, the appellants
should
be meted an indeterminate penalty of from nine (9) years and four (4)
months
of prision mayor in its medium period as minimum to seventeen (17)
years
and four (4) months of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
maximum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Civil Liabilities of
Appellants
The trial court ordered
the appellants in Criminal Case No. RTC-1218 to pay in solidum the
heirs
of the victim Eugene Tayactac, the amount of P75,000 by way of
indemnity.
The trial court did not award moral damages to said heirs. This
is
erroneous. Since the penalty imposed on the appellants is
reclusion
perpetua, the civil indemnity should be only P50,000. The heirs
of
the victim should also be awarded the amount of P50,000 as moral
damages.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case No.
RTC-1219, the trial court did not award moral damages to the victim
Arnold
Barcuma on its finding that the prosecution failed to adduce any
evidence
to prove said damages. The Court disagrees with the trial court.
The victim Arnold Barcuma himself testified on his injuries.[35]
He is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P25,000.[36]
Having suffered injuries and undergone medical treatment he is, as well
entitled to actual damages, which in the absence of evidence would,
nevertheless,
entitle him to an award of temperate or moderate damages, herein fixed
at P10,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Verdict of the Court
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City
(Negros Occidental), Branch 57, in Criminal Cases Nos. RTC-1217 up to
RTC-1219
is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. In Criminal Case
No. RTC-1217, the Court, finding the appellants not guilty of the crime
charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable
doubt, REVERSES the judgment of the trial court and ACQUITS them of the
said charge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. In Criminal Case
No. RTC-1218, the appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by
treachery,
and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordered
to pay in solidum the heirs of the victim Eugene Tayactac, the amounts
of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. In Criminal Case
No. RTC-1219, the appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
frustrated murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6, first
paragraph
of the Revised Penal Code and are hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate
penalty of from nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor in
its medium period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months
of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. The
appellants
are hereby ordered to pay in solidum to the victim Arnold Barcuma the
amount
of P25,000 as moral damages and P10,000 as temperate or moderate
damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.
,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales,
and
Azcuna,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Roberto S. Javellana.
[2]
Records, Criminal Case No. RTC-1218, p. 8.
[3]
TSN, December 5, 1996, pp. 5-6 & 20.
[4]
Records, Criminal Case No. RTC-1217, p. 8.
[5]
Id., at 202.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, December 8, 1996, p. 8.
[7]
Id., at 1-2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Records, Criminal Case No. RTC-1218, p. 1.
[9]
Id., at 403-404.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Records, Criminal Case No. RTC 1217, p. 387.
[11]
Id., at 415-416.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 68-69.
[13]
People v. Medina, 292 SCRA 436 (1998).
[14]
Fernandez v. People, 341 SCRA 277 (2000).
[15]
See note 13, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Ponce, 341 SCRA 352 (2000).
[17]
People v. Sualog, 344 SCRA 690 (2000); People v. Buluran, 325 SCRA 476
(2000).
[18]
See note 16, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People v. Campos, 202 SCRA 387 (1991).
[20]
People v. Bragaes, 203 SCRA 555, (1991).
[21]
People v. Flora, 334 SCRA 262 (2000).
[22]
TSN, September 26, 1995, pp. 15-16.
[23]
See note 21, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. Azugue, 268 SCRA 711 (1997).
[25]
People v. Floro, 316 SCRA 304 (1999).
[26]
REYES, REVISED PENAL CODE, 1998 ed., Vol. I, p. 99.
[27]
36 Phil. 209.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Maguikay, 237 SCRA 587 (1994); People v. Sumalpong, et
al., 284 SCRA 464 (1998).
[29]
TSN, December 5, 1996, pp. 9-10.
[30]
People v. Milliam, 324 SCRA 155 (2000).
[31]
People v. Blanco, 324 SCRA 280 (2000).
[32]
People v. Riglos, 339 SCRA 562 (2000).
[33]
REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 61, par. 2.
[34]
People v. Marlon Delim, et al., G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003.
[35]
TSN, July 19, 1995, pp. 22-25; TSN, March 11, 1997, pp. 7-9, 26-28.
[36]
NEW CIVIL CODE, Article 2219, par. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |