FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 138454.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JOCEL BEJO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
While this is not the Court's first time to see life so cheapened as to be snuffed out because of a driving altercation, the senseless killing is not any less appalling.
On
“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses JOCEL BEJO and
HAROLD BEJO, both of
That on or about the 5th day of November, 1996, in the City of Roxas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping each other, armed with a knife, respectively, with intent to kill and without justifiable motive, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and stab one JUAN BACUTA, thereby inflicting upon the latter the following stab wounds, to wit:
1. Stab wound, 1.5 cm. in width and 8 cm. depth, located at the right side of the thyroid area;
2. Stab wound, 7 cm. in length, thru and thru to the lung, located at the right infra clavicular anterior axillary line;
3. Superficial wound, 2 cm. width located at the left mid-abdominal region;
4. Superficial wound, 3 cm. width, located at the right index finger, posterior.
which stab wounds caused the instantaneous death of the said Juan Bacuta.
The offense is qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength and aggravated by treachery (alevosia).
That as a direct consequence of the unlawful acts of the accused,
the heirs of the victim suffered actual, moral and other damages in the amount
as may be awarded by the Court under the new Civil Code of the
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[1]
The accused pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. Harold Bejo was acquitted, hence this appeal involves only the accused Jocel Bejo.
The prosecution evidence shows that at the time Bacuta was
killed, witness Nestor Astorga was a resident of
On
Taking the witness stand, Corazon Alolor, another resident of Legaspi Street, narrated that on November 5, 1996, at about 11:30 in the evening, she was about to sleep on the second floor of her house. She heard a commotion outside so she opened her window to find out what it was all about. The part of the street where there was a commotion was lighted by a 100-watt bulb hanging from a lumboy tree branch about three meters from the ground, directly above a parked roofless jeep. From her house, the jeep was at the other side of the road, about six meters away. Juan Bacuta was behind the wheel of the jeep.
She saw Harold Bejo on Bacuta's left side, holding him on the
chest with both hands. Jocel Bejo and
Remwel Cornel jumped off the jeep, the former from the back of the jeep, the
latter from the jeep's front right side.
Bacuta struggled to break free from Harold Bejo to alight from the
jeep. Both Jocel Bejo and Remwel Cornel
held bloodstained knives while Harold Bejo's knife also had a little bloodstain. The three men had two female companions. The assailants then ran to the
Emelinda Bartolo also took the witness stand. She has been a resident of
In the evening of
Emelinda saw the events unfold before her eyes as the place was
well-lighted by a 100-watt bulb directly above the jeep, hanging from a branch
of the lumboy tree in front of the jeep.
There was also light coming from the headlights of the jeep and
Bartolo's house.[4]
Dr. Victoria B. Arcenas, Medical Officer IV of the City Health
Office, testified. Her competence as an
expert on wounds was admitted by the defense.
On
"1. Stab wound, 1.5 cm. in width and 8 cm. depth, located at the right side of the thyroid area;
2. Stab wound, 7 cm. in length, thru and thru to the lung, located at the right infra clavicular anterior axillary line;
3. Superficial wound, 2 cm. width located at the left mid-abdominal region;
4. Superficial wound, 3 cm.
width, located at the right index finger, posterior."[6]
Dr. Arcenas explained that the first
wound was a superficial stab wound located at the right side of the neck. It may have been caused by a sharp pointed
instrument like a knife. The second
wound was a penetrating fatal stab wound inflicted on the right side of
Bacuta's body, which hit the right lung.
The wound could have also been inflicted by a sharp pointed instrument
like a knife. The third was a
superficial wound at the left side of the abdomen. The fourth wound on the right index finger
was also superficial. Both the third and
fourth wounds were lacerated wounds possibly inflicted by sharp-edged
instruments. The wounds caused severe
bleeding and shock which led to the death of the victim. Dr. Arcenas issued a
Certificate of Death[7]
stating that the cause of Bacuta's death was hemorrhagic shock secondary to
stab wound. Dr. Arcenas opined that it
was possible for the first wound to have been inflicted by an assailant at the
right side of the victim, and the second wound by an assailant behind the victim. The trajectory of the first wound was from
right to left, while the second wound was horizontal from right to left. It was possible that the wounds were
inflicted by different sharp instruments.[8]
In his defense, the accused Jocel Bejo denied the charges against
him and pointed to Remwel Cornel as the assailant of Juan Bacuta. On
While the group was walking home along
While the Cornels were stabbing Bacuta, the accused Jocel Bejo,
Harold Bejo, and their two female companions were on the other side of the
street. Jocel Bejo was about six meters
away from the left side of the jeep and the two ladies were at some distance
ahead of him and Harold. The accused
shouted at Remwel to stop stabbing Bacuta as the latter was a barriomate. After Remwel stabbed Bacuta, the accused
Jocel Bejo immediately ran home with Harold as he was afraid of Remwel and did
not want to be implicated in the killing of Bacuta. The Bejo brothers slept in their house that
night and went to school the following day.
The accused Jocel Bejo did not know what happened to Remwel Cornel after
the stabbing incident as he did not inquire from him nor from his sister
Jocelyn. Nor did he know that Juan
Bacuta died on
Harold Bejo also testified.
On
While the Cornels were stabbing Bacuta, the Bejo brothers stood
at the other side of the road. From
there, they saw the bloodied knives of the assailants. Harold and Jocel ran home in
The defense also presented Jocelyn Bejo. On
Agustin Hari-on also testified for the defense. In the afternoon of
Hari-on continued to walk home, but looked back to his right as
his attention was drawn to the jeep when he heard Remwel Cornel say, “Why did
you run over me?” The driver of the jeep
retorted, “Why, what do you want?”
Remwel Cornel boarded the right front side of the jeep and with his
right hand stabbed the driver. Daryl
Cornel got on at the back of the jeep and stabbed the driver from behind. Hari-on was about ten meters away from the
jeep on the other side of the road. In
another part of his testimony, however, he stated that he could have been 100
meters away from the jeep. When Hari-on
came face-to-face with the Bejo siblings, he told them to go home. Jocel and Harold looked nervous and ran
towards the direction of their house.
Hari-on personally knew the Bejo brothers and Remwel and Daryl
Cornel. Hari-on continued walking home
as he was afraid that he would also be stabbed.
It was dark at that time because there was no electricity and it was
raining, but there was light coming from a bulb near the base of the jeep's
steering wheel. The headlights of the
jeep were also on. Hari-on also
testified that the jeep had a roof. But
when confronted with the testimony of Remwel Cornel that the jeep was roofless,
he stated that he did not notice if the jeep did or did not have a roof. Later, he said that only the front of the
jeep had a roof covering the driver and the front passenger seat. Hari-on learned the following morning that
the driver of the jeep was Juan Bacuta.[12]
Finally, the defense presented Joel Miranda. On
On rebuttal, PO3 William Limjuco, Jr. testified. On
The investigating team then proceeded to Jocel and Harold Bejos'
schools to verify if the brothers were attending classes in their respective
schools. Principal Caberoy of
The trial court upheld the version of the prosecution insofar as Jocel Bejo was concerned and acquitted Harold Bejo, viz:
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds and
declares accused Jocel Bejo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the heinous crime
of murder as defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and hereby sentences him to imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua, together with its accessory penalties, and to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Juan Bacuta, in the sum of P100,000.00.
For failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds and declares accused Harold Bejo INNOCENT and hereby acquits him from the charge of murder in this case.
In the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty, accused Jocel Bejo, being a detention prisoner who does not appear to
be otherwise disqualified, shall be credited with the full time of his
confinement under preventive imprisonment, provided he voluntarily agrees in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners,
pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code."[15]
Hence, this appeal with the lone assignment of error, viz:
“. . . the court a quo erred
in convicting the accused-appellant Jocel Bejo of the crime of Murder and in sentencing
him to imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA, despite clear and convincing
evidence that it was a certain Remwel Cornel who killed and stabbed the victim,
Juan Bacuta."[16]
The appeal is unmeritorious.
The accused-appellant assails the factual findings of the trial
court with respect to the identity of Juan Bacuta's assailants. He admits being present at the scene of the
crime but points to Remwel Cornel and Daryl Cornel as the culprits. In upholding the factual findings of the
trial court, we adhere to the well-entrenched rule that findings of fact of the
trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed
except for strong and valid reasons because of the trial court's unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to observe their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under gruelling examination.[17]
The prosecution witness Nestor Astorga clearly saw the accused-appellant stab
Bacuta on the chest while he (Jocel Bejo) was on board the left back portion of
Bacuta's owner-type jeep and Bacuta was on the driver's seat of the jeep. The other witnesses, Alolor and Bartolo, in
unmistakable terms, also identified Jocel Bejo as the assailant who jumped off
the left back portion of the jeep carrying a bloodstained knife. All three witnesses were innocent residents
along
That there was conspiracy between the accused-appellant and
Remwel Cornel is also clearly borne out by the records. Thus, it is not decisive whether the
accused-appellant or Remwel Cornel delivered the fatal blow which penetrated
Bacuta's lung. In conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all.[20]
There is conspiracy among perpetrators
of a crime when there is a unity in purpose and intention in the commission of
a crime.[21]
It does not require a previous plan
or agreement to commit assault as it is sufficient that at the time of such
aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire
to attack.[22]
Without a shadow of doubt, Juan Bacuta's assailants, including the accused
Jocel Bejo, did not previously conceive of a plan to attack Bacuta. The assailants' encounter with Bacuta along
“However, it has not escaped notice by the court that there was no evidence showing that the violent and deadly attack on the deceased by Jocel Bejo and his companion was the product of a prior or pre-existing conspiracy between them to kill the victim. What happened was obviously the tragic result of a casual encounter between the deceased and his assailants. But, of course, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, and proof of previous agreement to commit the crime is not also essential to establish conspiracy - it may be inferred from acts of the accused, whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime can show its existence (People v. Languire, 252 SCRA 213). For conspiracy to exist it is not essential that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. It may be shown by the simultaneous and contemporaneous acts of the accused (People v. Habilla, 252 SCRA 471).
In the instant case, the concerted action of accused Jocel Bejo and
his companion who might have been Remwel Cornel of simultaneously climbing up
the jeep of the deceased and stabbing him in rapid succession, and then jumping
from the jeep and fleeing from the scene of the crime and running together
towards the same direction clearly showed a common design and community of purpose
which positively and unmistakably established a conspiracy between them to kill
Juan Bacuta.” (emphasis supplied)[23]
We disagree, however, with the trial court's finding that the attack upon Bacuta was treacherous. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms of execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make.[24] It must be clearly shown that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen to accomplish the crime without risk to the aggressor.[25] We have ruled that treachery cannot be appreciated against the accused where the crime was the result of a casual encounter and the accused had no time to reflect on the method of execution of the crime.[26] In the instant case, the meeting between the accused-appellant's group and the victim was obviously a casual encounter. The impulsive stabbing followed a brief heated argument between the group and Bacuta regarding the latter's driving. While the attack may have been sudden, the circumstances show that the casual, brief, and tension-filled encounter did not afford the accused-appellant an opportunity to plan and deliberately adopt the method of assault as to accomplish the crime without risk to himself. He simply used whatever weapon he had on hand. To our mind, therefore, treachery cannot be appreciated.
The prosecution's evidence, however, supports a finding of abuse of superior strength. The accused Jocel Bejo and Remwel Cornel positioned themselves on the left and right sides of Juan Bacuta, respectively, to ensure he had no way out of the jeep as he was behind the wheel. With synchronicity, the accused Jocel Bejo boarded the back of the jeep while Remwel Cornel got on its front right part beside the driver's seat, and the two, with knives, stabbed the unarmed Bacuta almost at the same time. In People v. Diamonon,[27] we held that there was abuse of superior strength when the two assailants, armed with knives, cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their combined superiority in strength and took turns in stabbing the unarmed victim.
With respect to the damages, the trial court was correct in
ordering the accused-appellant to indemnify the victim's heirs P100,000.00,
P50,000.00 of which as civil indemnity and the other P50,000.00
as moral damages.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we AFFIRM the decision of the
trial court with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is found guilty of
the crime of Murder qualified by abuse of superior strength and not
treachery. The accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties and to
pay the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00
as moral damages. Costs against the
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 2.
[2] TSN, Nestor Astorga,
[3] TSN, Corazon Alolor,
[4] TSN, Emelinda
Bartolo,
[5] Exhibit
"A"; Original Records, p. 149.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Exhibit
"B"; Original Records, p. 150.
[8] TSN, Dr. Victoria Arcenas,
[9] TSN, Jocel Bejo,
[10] TSN, Harold Cornel,
[11] TSN, Jocelyn Bejo,
[12] TSN, Agustin
Hari-on,
[13] TSN, Joel Miranda,
[14] TSN, PO3 William
Limjuco, Jr.,
[15] Rollo, pp.
37-38; Decision, pp. 10-11.
[16] Rollo, p. 58;
Appellant's Brief, p.12.
[17] People v. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622,
[18] People v. Muerong, G.R. No. 132318,
[19] People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 134004,
[20] People v. Tumayao, et al.,
G.R. No. 137045,
[21] People v. Madulen, et al.,
G.R. No. 140277, June 6, 2001, citing People v. Lising, 285 SCRA
595 (1998).
[22]
[23] Rollo, p. 31;
Decision, p. 9.
[24] People v. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622,
July 31, 2001, citing People v.
Amazan, G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606-7, January 16, 2001; People v. Bato, G.R. No. 127843,
December 15, 2000.
[25] People v.
Bacho, 171 SCRA 458 (1989); see also People v. Velaga, Jr., 199
SCRA 518 (1991).
[26] People v.
Bacho, supra, citing People v. Plaza, 140 SCRA 277 (1985).
[27] 94 SCRA 227 (1979).