Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
-
versus -
CARPIO
MORALES,* J.,
Acting Chairperson,
BONIFACIO BADRIAGO,** TINGA,
Accused-Appellant. VELASCO,
JR.,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,*** and
BRION,
JJ.
Promulgated:
May
8, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
On automatic review is the Decision dated
April 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00129, which
found accused-appellant Bonifacio Badriago guilty of Frustrated Homicide in
Criminal Case No. 4255 and Murder in Criminal Case No. 4276.
The Facts
Accused-appellant
was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under the following
Informations:
Criminal Case No. 4255
That
on or about the 13th day of September 2002 in the Municipality of
Carigara, [P]rovince of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and with
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and hack one ADRIAN QUINTO, with the use of a long sharp bolo
(sundang) which the accused had provided himself for the purpose, thereby
inflicting upon the latter the following wounds, to wit:
SURGERY NOTES:
(+) hacked wounds transverse approximately 16
cms.
Linear (L) lumbar area level of L-L5
(+)
hacked wound (L) forearm.
ORTHO NOTES:
A)
Near amputation
M/3rd (L) forearm 2˚ to hack wound.
DIAGNOSIS:
Hack wound
15 cms. oblique level of L2 posterior
lumbar
area, transecting underlying muscle.
Fracture
both radius and ulna.
OPERATION: September 14, 2002.
Wound
Debridement and Repair
ORIF
(Pinning)
Which wounds required a period of from thirty (30)
days to ninety (90) days to heal and incapacitated said offended party from
performing his habitual work for the same period of time; thus the accused
performed all the acts of execution which [would] have produced the crime of
Homicide as a consequence thereof, but nevertheless did not produce it by
reason or causes independent of the will of the accused, that is the timely and
able medical assistance rendered to the said Adrian Quinto which prevented his
death.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 4276
That
on or about the 13th day of September, 2002, in the Municipality of
Carigara, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent, with
treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and stab one OLIVER QUINTO with the use of a
long sharp bolo (sundang) which the accused had provided himself for the
purpose, thereby inflicting upon the latter the following wounds, to wit:
1.
[Stab] wound 4 cm.
x 1.5 cm. x 16 cm. (L) ant. chest at the level of 5th ICS along the
(L) ICL;
2.
[Stab] wound 6.5
x 3 cm. x 22 cm. (L) ant. chest at the level of 6th ICS along (L)
anterior AAL;
3.
[Stab] wound 3.5
cm. x 1.5 x 2 cm., (L) arm proximal 3rd lateral aspect;
4.
Amputating wound
(L) 3rd, 4th and 5th finger;
5.
[Stab] wound 5
cm. x 3.5 cm. x 6 cm. umbilical area with intestinal and omental prolapsed;
6.
Hacking wound 9
cm. x 2 cm. (L) occipital area with skull fracture;
7.
[Stab] wound 3
cm. x 1 cm. x 15 cm. (L) posterior back at the level of T 12, 3 cm. away from
vertebral line;
8.
[Stab] wound 2
cm. x 1 cm. x 9 cm. (L) posterior back 8 cm. away from vertebral line;
9.
Hacking wound 11
cm. x 2 cm. x 9 cm. (L) posterior iliac with fracture of hip bone;
10. [Stab] wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 3 cm. (L) buttocks;
11. [Stab] wound 5.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. lumbar area
along the vertebral line.
which
wounds caused the death of said Oliver Quinto.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[1]
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to
both charges. The parties later agreed to try the case jointly. During trial,
the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Dr. Ma. Bella Profetana,
Adrian Quinto, Dr. Frederic Joseph Asanza, and Victoriano Quinto. The defense
witnesses consisted of accused-appellant and Rodolfo
The prosecution’s presentation of
evidence is summarized as follows:
Dr. Asanza’s testimony showed that
Dr. Profetana told the court that her
post-mortem examination of Oliver showed that eight of the 11 wounds inflicted
on him were fatal. She identified
hypovolemic shock as Oliver’s cause of death. Furthermore, she stated that it
was impossible for the victim to have survived the wounds as these severed the
blood vessels and caused hemorrhage.[4]
Victoriano, father of the victims,
testified that his family incurred PhP 20,000 in expenses for the stainless bar
placed on
In his defense, accused-appellant
stated under oath that on the morning of September 13, 2002, he was on his
pedicab looking for passengers. While he
was on his way to the bus terminal in Carigara,
When cross-examined accused-appellant
admitted that he did not suffer any injury following the confrontation with
The other defense witness, Rodolfo,
testified that he knew accused-appellant as a pedicab driver. On the day of the
incident he saw two pedicabs engaged in a chase. He noticed that accused-appellant
was in one pedicab and he was being chased by the pedicab driven by
On cross-examination, Rodolfo stated
that he had not seen if
On July 29, 2004, the RTC rendered
its judgment. Accused-appellant was found guilty of the crimes charged. The fallo of the Decision is as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, the Court [finds] accused BONIFACIO BARDIAGO, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of FRUSTRATED MURDER instead of Frustrated
Homicide in Criminal Case No. 4255, and [sentences him] to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Mayor as
Minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS and one (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum,
and to pay Adrian Quinto actual damages in the amount of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos and exemplary damages in the amount of Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) pesos.
Likewise, pursuant to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended and further amended by R.A. No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)
the Court found accused BONIFACIO BARDIAGO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of MURDER charged under the information in Criminal Case No. 4276,
and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH, and pay the heirs of
Oliver Quinto civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand
(P75,000.00) and exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand
(P25,000.00) Pesos; and [to] pay the cost.
SO ORDERED.[9]
On September 14, 2004, the records of
the case were transferred to this Court on automatic review as the death
penalty was involved. But conformably with People
v. Mateo,[10] the
case was transferred to the CA via a Resolution dated February 15, 2005.
Accused-appellant, in his Brief filed
before the CA, claimed that the trial court erred in convicting him of
frustrated murder as what was read to him at his arraignment was a charge for
frustrated homicide, and the trial court likewise erred in convicting him of
frustrated murder and murder as his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. He also challenged the conviction
on the ground that the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender,
incomplete self-defense, and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong were
not appreciated by the trial court.
The
CA sustained accused-appellant’s first contention. It ruled that his conviction
for frustrated murder was a gross violation of his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and the cause of accusation against him. Accused-appellant’s
other arguments, however, were not given merit. The CA noted the undisputed
fact that it was accused-appellant, claiming self-defense, who inflicted the
wounds sustained by Adrian and Oliver. The circumstantial evidence presented
showed accused-appellant’s culpability. Moreover, according to the CA, his
choice of weapon and the areas he hacked on the victim’s bodies revealed a
clear intention to kill. The CA said he was able to injure the brothers with no
injury caused to himself.
Lastly,
the appellate court rejected the mitigating circumstances proffered by accused-appellant.
It ruled that there was no voluntary surrender as accused-appellant himself
testified that he had merely reported the injury and did not surrender. As to
the self-defense theory, the CA stated that accused-appellant failed to
establish the victims’ unlawful aggression, a requisite in such a mitigating
circumstance.
In view of Republic Act No. 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death,[11] the CA reduced accused-appellant’s
penalty to reclusion perpetua with
respect to the murder charge in Criminal Case No. 4276.
The decretal portion of the CA
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing taken into account, the instant
appeal is partially granted.
Accordingly, in Criminal Cases No. 4255
accused-appellant is found guilty only of FRUSTRATED
HOMICIDE and is hereby penalized to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 2
years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years and 1
day of prison mayor as maximum and to pay Adrian Quinto the sum of twenty five
thousand pesos (P25,000.00) by way of temperate damages.
In
criminal case no. 4276 accused-appellant is found guilty of MURDER and is hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the amount
of fifty thousand pesos (Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity; twenty five thousand
pesos (P25,000.00) by way of temperate damages, fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages and twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as
exemplary damages.
With
costs.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The Issues
On September 1, 2008, this Court notified the parties that
they may file supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested
that they were dispensing with such filing. Accused-appellant, thus, re-pleads
his arguments first made before the CA. His appeal being partially granted, the
only remaining issues to be resolved are the following:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE AND MURDER DESPITE THE
FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE, AND
LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
Our Ruling
We affirm accused-appellant’s conviction.
Frustrated Homicide
To
successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the
accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the
accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing
was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of
parricide or infanticide.[13]
Moreover, 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 without medical intervention or attendance.[14]
On the other hand, the essential
elements of a frustrated felony are as follows: (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; and (4) by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.[15]
From the evidence presented to the
trial court, it is very much clear that accused-appellant was able to perform
all the acts that would necessarily result in
Murder Qualified by Treachery
It is also argued by the defense that
the attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proved by clear and
convincing evidence. Accused-appellant reasons that
The
essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, offering an unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[16]
There is treachery even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and
unexpected, with the victims having no opportunity to repel it or defend themselves,
for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it
impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate.[17]
The records show that
Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence
Accused-appellant speculates that if
the incident happened in broad daylight and near a bus terminal, there should
have been independent eyewitnesses identifying accused-appellant as Oliver’s
killer. Much is made of the fact that not even
The failure by the prosecution to present
the weapon allegedly used in the attack is, in accused-appellant’s mind, yet
another obstacle to the State’s obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
We hold that the circumstantial
evidence available was enough to convict accused-appellant. Circumstantial
evidence may be competent to establish guilt as long as it is sufficient to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, and not someone else, was
responsible for the killing.[19]
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction as long as there is (1)
more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[20]
We go back to accused-appellant’s own
admission that he indeed injured
Accused-appellant, thus, cannot argue that the prosecution’s
evidence was insufficient to convict him. Furthermore, we have long ago held
that the presentation of the murder weapon is not even essential for a
conviction.[21]
Voluntary Surrender
For the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous and in
a manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional surrender to the
authorities, either based on recognition of guilt or from the desire to save
the authorities from the trouble and expenses that would be involved in the
accused’s search and capture.[22]
Moreover, it is imperative that the accused was not actually arrested, the
surrender is before a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority,
and the surrender was voluntary.[23]
None
of these requisites are present in accused-appellant’s case. In fact, jurisprudence
holds that merely reporting the incident cannot be considered voluntary
surrender within contemplation of the law.[24] By accused-appellant’s own admission, he only
went to the authorities to inform them that
Incomplete Self-Defense
We likewise find implausible accused-appellant’s
assertion that he employed self-defense. The records show that the requisites
of a successful claim of self-defense were not met. As found in the Revised Penal Code, these
are:
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances.––The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Any one who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
In incomplete self-defense, the
indispensable requisite is unlawful aggression.[25]
What is missing is either reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it or lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons
defending themselves. In the instant case, accused-appellant’s self-serving
claim of self-defense coupled with the fact that he did not sustain any
injuries from his supposed attacker, Adrian, fails to support any claim of
unlawful aggression, the crucial requisite to his defense. As the appellate
court noted, there was no clear, credible, and convincing evidence that
Lack of Intention to Commit So Grave a Wrong
Under Article 13(3) of the Code, the
circumstance that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed mitigates criminal liability. This mitigating circumstance
addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when
the offender executes or commits the criminal act.[27] Looking at the victims’ wounds, however, we
cannot count the circumstance in accused-appellant’s favor.
Conclusion
We agree with the findings by the
trial and appellate courts on the particulars of the case. Findings of facts of
the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive absent any
evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts
and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a
modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[29] Since the aforementioned exceptions are not
present, accused-appellant’s conviction is warranted.
Finally, we affirm the sentence
imposed on accused-appellant in both criminal cases. In accordance with
jurisprudence,[30] we, however,
additionally award moral damages of PhP 50,000 to
WHEREFORE, the appeal is
DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00129 which found accused-appellant
guilty of Frustrated Homicide in Criminal Case No. 4255 and Murder in Criminal
Case No. 4276 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is likewise
ordered to pay Adrian the amount of PhP 50,000 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
DANTE
O. TINGA TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 16-18.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[11] Effective June 24, 2006.
[12] Rollo, pp. 19-20. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Florito A. Macalino.
[13] Nerpio v. People, G.R. No. 155153, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 93, 100.
[14] People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 671, 695.
[15]
[16] Tolentino, supra note 14, at 697.
[17] People v. Segobre, G.R. No. 169877,
February 14, 2008, 545 SCRA 341, 348-349.
[18] People v. Sison, G.R. No. 172752, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 156, 172.
[19] Commonwealth v. Conkey, 819 N.E.2d 176,
[20] People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 174479, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 616, 633.
[21] People v. Chavez, G.R. No. 116294, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 230, 242; citing People v. Bello, G.R. No. 92597, October 4, 1994, 237 SCRA 347, 352.
[22] Garcia, supra note 20, at 637.
[23] People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 169060, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 660, 672.
[24] People v. Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1997, 267 SCRA 103, 118.
[25]
[26]
[27] People v. Abueg, No. L-54901, November 24, 1986, 145 SCRA 622, 634.
[28] People v. Cardel, G.R. No. 105582, July 19, 2000, 336 SCRA 144, 161.
[29] People v. Dilao, G.R. No. 170359, July
27, 2007, 528 SCRA 427, 439.
[30] People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 148123, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 595.
[31]