SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 139531.
PEOPLE OF THE
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1]
of the
Reynaldo Bagano alias Pugot a.k.a. Reynaldo Friolo
and Pablito Cañete were
charged with murder qualified by conspiracy and aggravated by treachery and
evident premeditation in an Information dated P50,000.00 as death compensation and P4,660.00
for burial expenses.
The court a quo rejected the defense of alibi and denial
raised by accused Bagano and Cañete
on the basis of the following findings:
On 23 May 1995, about 3:00 o'clock in the morning, Jeremias
Montecino and his wife Merlinda
Montecino were sleeping in their home in Sitio Wangyu, Alaska, Barangay Mambaling, Cebu City, when they were awakened by someone repeatedly
calling Jeremias' name. The call came from outside. Jeremias went to
the window to see who it was and thereafter left their room to go outside. Merlinda remained
in their room, but peering through the window she saw Pablito
Canete suddenly embrace Jeremias
as the latter was opening the gate.
Thereupon, Reynaldo Bagano with ice pick in
hand stabbed Jeremias on the chest. Jeremias struggled
to free himself from Pablito Cañete's
clasp and ran, but Reynaldo Bagano gave chase. Upon hearing Merlinda's
screams for help[3]
Reynaldo withdrew and fled with Pablito Canete following him.
Merlinda rushed Jeremias
to the
Accused-appellants Bagano and Cañete now argue that their conviction was erroneous as the
prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, grounded as it
was on the testimony of Merlinda Montecino
which they claim was unreliable and incredible.
They question her claim to have vividly seen the stabbing incident when
she admitted that the attack occurred at
The arguments of the defense are bereft of merit. Without falter or vacillation, Merlinda Montecino narrated in open court how accused-appellants attacked her husband; thus we have no reason to disbelieve her. Indeed, she admitted that at 3:00 o'clock in the morning darkness enshrouded the vicinity; nonetheless their front yard was well-lit by a mercury bulb on a lamp post across their house which adequately illumined the place that enabled her to clearly identify the assailants,[4] particularly so that they were not strangers to Merlinda as they were friends of her husband who frequented their home.[5] They were therefore easily recognizable to her even in shadows.
As the widow of the victim and lone witness to the crime, Merlinda Montecino would not
impute the killing of her husband on accused-appellants if she was not certain
that they were his tormentors. She had
no reason to. A witness' relationship to
a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible as it
would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in establishing the crime
to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[6]
Contrary to the claim of accused-appellants, treachery attended the killing of the victim. However, it is not because the attack was made at an unholy hour, or the victim was roused from his sleep, or that accused-appellants were known to the victim,[7] that we affirm the lower court's finding of treachery, but rather for the suddenness of the attack and the fact that the victim was unarmed with no opportunity to defend himself from the aggression.
Section 16, Art. 14, of The Revised Penal Code provides that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. The law therefore stresses the manner of performance or accomplishment of the crime than any other factor. Circumstances of time and relationship will not be of relative importance unless they aided or made easy the execution of the crime and thus denied the victim the chance to defend himself. The fact that the attack was made at dawn and the victim who was the friend of the malefactors had just awakened may have facilitated the commission of the crime although the crime nonetheless may have been committed even without those circumstances. Treachery here was extant from the act of accused-appellant Pablito Cañete in locking the victim in a sudden embrace and giving his co-accused-appellant Reynaldo Bagano full opportunity to stab their victim on his left chest. The suddenness and the method employed by Cañete completely deprived Jeremias of any chance to defend himself.
As observed by Dr. Jesus Cerna, Police Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy[8] on the victim, the latter did not sustain any defensive wound, which meant that it was possible that he was not able to defend himself because somebody was holding his hands[9] or that the attack was so sudden. For this reason, we sustain the finding of treachery by the trial court.
From the records it is clear that treachery attended the commission of the crime, but this alone should be appreciated against accused-appellants. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism cannot be held against Balano as it was not alleged in the Information.[10] Be that as it may, treachery can only be considered as a qualifying circumstance that would affect the nature of the crime and not as a generic aggravating circumstance that would raise the penalty to death.
Conspiracy is attendant in the commission of the crime. For conspiracy to exist, 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.[11]
Proof of an actual planning of the
perpetuation of the crime is not a
condition precedent. From the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated, and as can be inferred from their
acts, it is evident that Bagano and Cañete were one in their intention to kill Jeremias Montecino. Hence, in accordance with the principle that
in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, the fact that it was Bagano who delivered the fatal blow on Montecino
and Cañete's participation was limited to a mere
embrace is immaterial. Conspiracy
bestows upon them equal liability; hence, they shall suffer the same fate for
their acts.
Article 248 of The Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo of P50,000.00 as indemnity for
death and P4,660.00 for burial expenses awarded by the trial court, to
pay jointly and severally the heirs of Jeremias Montecino P50,000.00 more for moral damages. Costs against both accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
* Accused-appellant Reynaldo Bagano alias Pugot claims that he is also known as Reynaldo Friolo.
[1] Decision penned by
Judge Antonio T. Echavez,
RTC-Br. 8,
[2] Rollo,
p. 9.
[3] Merlinda
shouted “Tabang!” which meant “Help!” in Cebuano; TSN,
[4] TSN,
[5]
[6] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 122746,
[7] Brief for the Appellee, p. 16; Rollo, p.
107.
[8] Necropsy Report No.
N-94-061.
[9] TSN,
[10] Reynaldo Bagano was previously convicted of frustrated homicide in
Criminal Case No. CBU-21056 while Pablito Cañete was convicted of theft in Criminal Case No.
CBU-26907 (TSN, 25 January 1996, p. 6); see Note 2.
[11] People v. Botona,
G.R. No. 115693,