SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 113940. February 15, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIELITO BULURAN y
RAMIREZ and LEONARDO VALENZUELA y CASTILLO, accused-appellants. Scjuris
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
On appeal is the decision dated February 4,
1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, convicting
accused-appellants of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay solidarily the heirs of the
deceased the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity, and P8,000.00 as actual
damages, and also to pay proportionately the costs.
Of the four suspected perpetrators of the
crime, only two were arrested and tried, namely Cielito Buluran and Leonardo
Valenzuela, now the appellants. The other two, Reynaldo Danao and Jaime Danao,
remain at-large.
The facts, as gleaned from the records, are
as follows:
On May 16, 1993, shortly before 7:15 in the
evening, the Meyer family was celebrating the birthday of their mother at their
residence in Area 4, Barangay Amaparo, Capri, Novaliches, Quezon City. It
appears that Dominador Meyer, Jr., had an altercation with a cousin. The
victim, Edilberto Meyer, Sr., tried to pacify them, and brought Dominador
outside the house to cool-off. However, while the victim and Dominador, were
talking outside their residence, Reynaldo Danao approached them and warned them
not to make any trouble because the community was celebrating its fiesta. The
victim denied making any trouble and said that the matter was a family problem.
Suddenly, Reynaldo boxed the victim who also retaliated with a fistblow. The
two exchanged blows and grappled with each other. Reynaldo managed to run away
but returned after about two minutes. Jurissc
Now, accompanied by his barkadas or
gangmates (Cielito Buluran, Leonardo Valenzuela and Jaime Danao), Reynaldo was
armed with a 12-inch stainless knife. Cielito had also a knife. Leonardo and
Jaime each carried slingshots, with sharp-pointed arrows made of five-inch
nails with abaca tails. Without warning, Reynaldo stabbed the victim at the
left side of his lower back. All the while, his three companions were pointing
and brandishing their weapons at the Meyer brothers and the other people
present in order to prevent them from interfering. Cielito poked his knife at
the Meyer brothers and stood guard to prevent other people from rendering help
to the victim. Leonardo likewise held his slingshot against the Meyer brothers
and prevented people from going near the victim by pointing his loaded
slingshot at them. Thereafter, the four barkadas fled. The victim died that
same night.[1]
On May 20, 1993, appellant Cielito Buluran
and three (3) John Does were charged with the crime of murder under the
following Information:[2]
"I N
F O R M A T I O N
"The
undersigned accuses CIELITO BULURAN Y RAMIREZ of the crime of Murder, committed
as follows:
"That on or
about the 16th day of May, 1993, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with three (3) other persons,
whose true identities, whereabouts and other personal circumstances of which
have not yet been ascertained, and mutually helping one another, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery and evident premeditation, assault and employ personal violence upon
the person of one EDILBERTO MEYER, SR Y JAVIER, by then and there stabbing him
with the use of a deadly weapon (knife) hitting him at his back, thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which was the direct and
immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs
of the said Edilberto Meyer, Sr. y Javier.
"CONTRARY TO
LAW.
Misjuris
"Quezon City,
Philippines, May 19, 1993.
(SGD.) WILFREDO L.
MAYNIGO
Assistant
City Prosecutor"
The Information was later amended[3] when Leonardo Valenzuela was identified as one of
the assailants. Upon arraignment, both accused entered pleas of not guilty.[4]
During trial, the prosecution presented
three eyewitnesses to the stabbing incident, namely Artemio Avendaño, Jacinto
Castillo, and Gloria Castillo.[5] All were neighbors of the victim. The prosecution
likewise presented PO1 Roberto C. San Miguel of Station 2, Sangang Daan,
Novaliches, Quezon City, who "invited" appellant Buluran to the
precinct,[6] and Chief Inspector Florante F. Baltazar, the
Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim. Baltazar
testified that the cause of death was the "penetrating stab wound at the
posterior left lumbar region."[7] The victim’s widow, Mrs. Erlinda C. Meyer, testified
as to the actual damages sustained as a result of the death of her husband.[8]
For the defense, appellants denied any
participation in the affray and testified that at the time of the incident,
they were both asleep in their respective houses.[9] The father of appellant Buluran confirmed that his
son was asleep in their house from 5:00 in the afternoon until the policemen
came to arrest him at around 8:00 that same evening.[10] Manuel Valenzuela testified that his brother
Leonardo, appellant herein, was drunk and asleep inside their house from 5:00
in the afternoon until the following day. Contrary to the version of the
prosecution, Manuel testified that he saw a fight erupt between Reynaldo Danao
on one hand, and the victim, one "Boyet," and one "Amang,"
on the other hand. The victim, Boyet and Amang stabbed Reynaldo three times
with their knives. Reynaldo retaliated by stabbing the victim and fleeing
afterwards. Thereafter, people from the Meyer house came out and started
throwing empty bottles in front of the store, causing all the bystanders to
scamper away. Manuel was even hit by a flying bottle at his left eyebrow, which
left a scar, because he was mistaken for his brother. At around 7:45 a.m.,
Manuel tried to wake up his brother, appellant Leonardo Valenzuela, from his
drunken stupor but the latter would not budge. Thereafter, Manuel went to the
house of appellant Buluran, but Buluran was also drunk and asleep at that time.[11]Jjlex
To bolster their version, the defense presented
Dr. Feliciano Bornales, who testified that two (2) days after the incident, or
on May 18, 1993, he treated one Reynaldo Danao for two stab wounds and an
incised wound. Dr. Bornales testified that did not know who inflicted such
wounds.[12]
On February 4, 1994, the trial court,
finding conspiracy and treachery, rendered judgment[13] convicting appellants of murder. The dispositive
portion of the judgment reads:
"WHEREFORE,
the Court finds both accused Cielito Buluran y Ramirez and Leonardo Valenzuela
y Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder charged
herein, defined and punished in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
principals in the commission thereof and, accordingly, they are hereby
sentenced each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; jointly and
severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Edilberto Meyer, Sr. y Javier
in the sum of eight thousand pesos as actual damages and in the further sum of
fifty thousand pesos as death indemnity; and, to pay the proportionate costs,
without prejudice to the application of Rep. Act No. 6127 in favor of each of
them.
"SO ORDERED.
"Quezon City,
Philippines, February 04, 1994."[14]
Hence, the present appeal. Appellants assign
the following errors: Newmiso
I. THE COURT ERRED
BY FAILING TO INQUIRE WHETHER APPELLANTS WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN THE
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE POLICE WHICH LATER ON PRESENTED THEM
FOR INQUEST TO THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY;
II. THE COURT
ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT APPELLANTS WERE ARRESTED BY THE
POLICE, WITHOUT ANY PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BY THE CITY PROSECUTOR;
III. THE COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS WHO INSTEAD ARE ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL ON
GROUNDS OF VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS TO
DUE PROCESS WHICH DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION.
In their consolidated brief, appellants
contend that they were merely made the scapegoats for the killing. They insist
they have no previous police record and should be presumed as law-abiding
citizens. Moreover, appellants argue that their warrantless arrest and the lack
of preliminary investigation render the criminal proceedings against them
illegal for violation of their constitutional rights.
The Office of the Solicitor General, for the
State, contends that conspiracy is the rope that binds appellants together,
even though only Reynaldo Danao actually stabbed the victim. Further, any
alleged irregularity in their arrest or the lack of preliminary investigation
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, since these irregularities
should have been properly raised before arraignment. Acctmis
In our view, the issues here involve the
alleged irregularity of appellants’ arrest; the alleged violation of their
constitutional rights during custodial investigation for lack of counsel; and
the alleged invalidity of the proceedings in the trial court sans preliminary
investigation. Considering these issues, we hold that:
First. Appellants are estopped from
questioning the validity of their respective arrests since they never raised
this issue before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or
the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[15]
Second. There is no violation of the
constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation since
neither one executed an extrajudicial confession or admission. In fact, the
records[16] show that appellant Cielito Buluran opted to remain
silent during the custodial investigation. Any allegation of violation of
rights during custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in
which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused
becomes the basis of their conviction.[17] In this case, the basis of the conviction by the
trial court was the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, Artemio Avendaño,
Jacinto Castillo, and Gloria Castillo. It is noteworthy that appellants never
attempted to impeach their testimonies during trial. Neither do they assail the
credibility of said witnesses on appeal. Misact
However, in relation to the view of the
Office of the Solicitor General that the right to counsel during custodial
investigation can be waived by reason of failure to make a timely objection
before plea,[18] we must stress that there can be no valid waiver of
the right to counsel unless such waiver is in writing and in the presence of
counsel as mandated by Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution and the
pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7438.[19]
Third. The failure to accord appellants
their right to preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the
information nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court.[20] While the right to preliminary investigation is a
substantive right and not a mere formal or technical right of the accused,
nevertheless, the right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the
accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea
at arraignment.[21] It appearing that appellants only raised the issue
of lack of preliminary investigation during appeal, their right to a
preliminary investigation was deemed waived when they entered their respective
pleas of not guilty.
Pursuant to the doctrine that an appeal in a
criminal case opens the whole case for review (including penalty, indemnity and
damages),[22] we shall now consider whether appellants were
correctly found guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Unquestionably, and appellants do not allege
otherwise, conspiracy attended the killing of the victim. Conspiracy to exist
does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the
occurrence.[23] From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at
the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and
were united in its execution.[24] In this case, the presence of appellants, both armed
with deadly weapons, at the locus criminis indubitably shows their
complicity in the criminal design of Reynaldo Danao to kill the victim. Sdjad
However, we find that no treachery attended
the killing. On numerous occasions, we have held that where a killing was
preceded by an argument or quarrel, then the qualifying circumstance of
treachery can no longer be appreciated since the victim could be said to have
been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants.[25] The previous boxing incident between the victim and
Reynaldo Danao must have already put the victim on guard for further aggression
or retaliation by Reynaldo Danao. Hence, treachery could not be appreciated as
a qualifying circumstance in this case.
Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation alleged by the prosecution was not proved clearly and
convincingly.[26] Considering that the attack was made about two
minutes after the initial altercation,[27] it cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse of
time between such determination to commit the crime and its execution so as to
allow the assailants to reflect upon the consequences of their actions.[28]
We find, however, that the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing. "To
appreciate abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance, what
should be considered is not that there were three, four or more assailants of
one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined
strength in order to consummate the offense. It is therefore necessary to show
that the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their
superiority in strength."[29] In this case, appellants and their companions
purposedly gathered together and armed themselves to take advantage of their
combined strength to ensure that Reynaldo Danao would be able to kill the
victim without any interference from other bystanders. However, not having been
alleged in the Information, abuse of superior strength can only be considered
as a generic aggravating circumstance.[30]Sppedsc
Absent any qualifying circumstance,
appellants should therefore be held liable only for the crime of homicide,
attended by one aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the penalty should only
be the penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which
is reclusion temporal, and not reclusion perpetua. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the appellants should be sentenced to 8
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to 18 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum.
As to the amount of damages, prevailing
jurisprudence sets the indemnity for death in the amount of P50,000.00, which
can be awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the
victim.[31] The amount of P8,000.00 as actual damages should
likewise be affirmed, the wife having presented a receipt (Exhibit
"C") to support such claim.[32] In addition, there being one aggravating
circumstance, exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00[33] may be awarded, pursuant to Article 2230 of the New
Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants are hereby found guilty of the crime of
Homicide, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum, and to pay jointly and severally, the heirs of the
deceased, the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity, P8,000.00 as actual damages,
and P20,000 as exemplary damages. Costs against appellants. Calrsc
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] TSN, September 14, 1993, pp. 11-13; TSN, September 16, 1993, pp. 13, 15, 21; TSN, November 4, 1993, p. 6; Exhibit "I", Referral for Inquest.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Id. at 14.
[4] Order dated July 15, 1993, Records, pp. 38-39.
[5] Gloria Castillo was presented as a rebuttal witness.
[6] TSN, September 13, 1993, pp.5-6.
[7] TSN, September 17, 1993, p. 6.
[8] TSN, September 16, 1993, pp. 4-5.
[9] TSN, October 7, 1993, pp. 8-9; TSN, October 14, 1993, pp. 7-8.
[10] TSN, September 30, 1993, p. 4.
[11] TSN, September 28, 1993, pp. 6-9, 12-14.
[12] TSN, November 9, 1993, pp. 3-4.
[13] Records, p. 107.
[14] Id. at 110.
[15] People v. Patalin, Jr. et. al., G.R. No. 125539, July 27, 1999, p. 20; People v. Tidula, 292 SCRA 596, 611 (1998); People v. Salvatierra, 276 SCRA 55, 63 (1997); Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402, 417 (1997).
[16] Records, p. 4.
[17] People v. Andres, 296 SCRA 318, 337 (1998); People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751, 790 (1998).
[18] Rollo, p. 142.
[19] An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating Officers and and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof. See also People v. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999, pp. 19-20; People v. Bacor, G.R. No. 122895, April 30, 1999, p. 15.
[20] Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 518, 525 (1997); People v. Villanueva, 265 SCRA 318, 322 (1996); Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, 154 (1992).
[21] Ibid.
[22] People v. Villablanca, G.R. No. 89662, October 1, 1999, p. 9; People v. Rabanag, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999; People v. Medina, 300 SCRA 98, 114 (1998); Sumalpong v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 764, 775 (1997); also Section 11 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[23] People v. Patalinghug, G.R. No. 125814-15, November 16, 1999, p. 18; People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999, p. 5.
[24] Ibid.
[25] People v. Villanueva, 265 SCRA 216, 225 (1996); People v. Macalino, 177 SCRA 185, 194 (1989).
[26] People v. Basao, G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999; People v. Pallarco, 288 SCRA 151, 169-170 (1998). People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464, 490 (1998).
[27] TSN, September 16, 1993, p. 21.
[28] People v. Sambulan, 289 SCRA 500, 515-516 (1998).
[29] People v. Platilla, G.R. No. 126123, March 9, 1999, p. 19.
[30] People v. Platilla, G.R. No. 126123, March 9, 1999, p. 20; People v. Valeriano, 226 SCRA 694, 708 (1993); People v. Entes, 103 SCRA 162, 168 (1981).
[31] People v. Floro, G.R. No. 120641, October 7, 1999, p. 12.
[32] People v. Panaga, G.R. No. 125967-70, May 5, 1999, p. 16.
[33] People v. Bahenting, G.R. No. 127659, February 24, 1999, p. 12.