Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - FRANCISCO RELOS, SR., Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 189326
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: November
24, 2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
In an Information dated December 28,
2005, appellant Francisco Relos, Sr., together with his brother, Oliver Relos (Oliver); sons, Francisco Relos, Jr.
(Francisco, Jr.) and Regie Relos (Regie); nephews, Georgie Relos (Georgie), Larry
Relos (Larry), and Olijames Relos (Olijames); and sons-in-law, Allan Falabiano
(Allan) and Steve Paa (Steve), was charged for killing his cousin, Ramon Relos,
Sr., thus:
That on or about DECEMBER 26, 2005, in the [M]unicipality of Lal-lo, [P]rovince of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with knives, bolos and a hand grenade, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, and by the use of superior strength, conspiring together and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, stab[,] and hack one Ramon Relos, Sr., inflicting upon the latter multiple stab/hack wounds in the different parts of his body which caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
On
December 26, 2005, at past 7:00 a.m., the victim and his son, Ramon Relos, Jr. (Ramon,
Jr.), alighted from a jeepney and walked along the highway towards the house of
Feliciano Relos, Jr. (Feliciano, Jr.), the victim’s brother. Appellant was then
leaning on the fence in front of his house, while his son, Francisco, Jr., and
Oliver were across the road. The victim was walking about five meters ahead of his son and was almost in front of appellant’s
house when Oliver approached him and greeted him, “Merry Christmas, insan!” while drawing his knife. Appellant
approached the victim from behind and suddenly hacked him with a bolo on the
right shoulder. Francisco, Jr. followed it with hack to the victim’s left
shoulder. Oliver then placed his arm over the victim’s shoulders and stabbed the
victim several times on the front portion of his body.
Ramon,
Jr. shouted at the assailants, telling them to stop hurting his father, but he
was chased by Francisco, Jr., who was holding a bolo with a long handle, and Allan
and Larry, who were also armed with knives. Francisco, Jr. caught up with
Ramon, Jr. and hacked him, but the latter was able to jump over a drainage
canal and run away.
Meanwhile,
the victim fell on the ground after he was stabbed by Oliver. Rogelio Bautista,
Jr. (Rogelio, Jr.), the victim’s nephew, who had just come from the store,
witnessed the incident and shouted to Feliciano, Jr. that his brother had been
killed. Feliciano, Jr. and Rogelio, Jr.’s mother, Gloria, ran out of the house
in the direction of where the victim was, but they were met by Georgie and
Olijames, who were holding a kris and
a bolo, so they retreated.
Regie
and Steve pushed the victim’s body towards a canal. Thereafter, Oliver cut off
the victim’s head, showed it to passersby, and then dropped it on the road. He
then went to his house and brought out a gun and a hand grenade. He tried to
shoot Gloria and Rogelio, Jr., but the gun would not fire. Instead, he threw the
hand grenade at them, but it hit a tree near him and exploded.
About
10 to 15 minutes later, the police arrived and arrested appellant, Oliver,
Francisco, Jr., Larry, and Georgie. The others ran away.
During
arraignment, Oliver pleaded guilty, while the others, including herein
appellant, pleaded not guilty.
On
October 25, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision[2]
finding appellant, Oliver, and Francisco, Jr. guilty of murder, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Oliver Relos and Francisco Relos, Sr., “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of “Murder” for killing Ramon Relos, Sr., and finds accused Larry Relos, Allan Falabiano, Regie Relos, Olijames Relos, Steve Paa[,] and Georgie Relos “Not Guilty” for lack of evidence and orders their acquittal. They being detention prisoners, they are hereby ordered released immediately unless detained for some other lawful cause.
The sentencing of minor accused Francisco Relos, Jr.[,] though found to be guilty[,] is hereby suspended pursuant to the provisions [of] Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code and Article 192 of PD 603. However[,] he must be sent to a reformatory institution. Let accused Francisco Relos, Jr. be transferred from his detention and be placed under the care and custody of the DSWD for his rehabilitation pursuant to law.
The
court hereby sentences accused Oliver Relos and Francisco Relos, Sr. to each
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of the victim the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, the
amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) as actual damages and pay
the costs of [the] suit.
SO DECIDED.[3]
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, with modification
as to the award of damages. The CA gave credence to the testimonies of Ramon,
Jr. and Rogelio, Jr., noting that their narration of events was corroborated by
physical evidence, that is, the location and the nature of the wounds sustained
by the victim as indicated in the autopsy report. Correlatively, the CA did not
give weight to Oliver’s testimony that appellant was not at the scene of the
crime at the time the incident happened, which testimony would have exonerated
appellant. Finally, the CA affirmed the trial court’s findings of conspiracy
and the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Thus, the dispositive portion of
the CA Decision[4] dated May
19, 2009 reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Decision dated October 25, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri,
Cagayan, Branch 8, in Criminal Case No. II-9527 which found accused-appellant
Francisco Relos, Sr. guilty of MURDER and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and costs of [the] suit is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant
is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of Ramon Relos, Sr. the amounts of P50,000.00
as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages. We delete the award of actual damages.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Appellant filed a notice of appeal,
which was given due course by the CA in its Resolution[6]
dated July 2, 2009.
We find no reversible error in the assailed Decision.
Findings of trial courts, which are
factual in nature and which involve credibility of witnesses, are accorded
respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary,
and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[7] None
of these circumstances is present in this case. The Court therefore sustains
the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, particularly on
the weight given to the testimony of the victim’s son, Ramon, Jr.
The testimonies of Ramon, Jr. and the
other witnesses firmly established appellant’s identity and his participation
in the killing of Ramon, Sr. Thus, Oliver’s testimony that he did not see
appellant at the scene of the crime when the victim was killed was obviously a
blatant lie, not worthy of any credence.
Based on the narration of events that
led to the victim’s death, we find that the finding of conspiracy was indeed warranted.
Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act.[8] It
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime.[9] Conspiracy
may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a
joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
interest.[10]
The presence of conspiracy was definitely
established by the synchronized acts of appellant, Oliver, and Francisco, Jr. in
carrying out their common objective of killing the victim. The three assailants
simultaneously approached the victim and delivered successive blows that
seriously injured the latter.
Though it was not clear
who delivered the fatal blow, it does not make any difference in light of the
finding of conspiracy. Where conspiracy is shown, the precise
modality or extent of participation of each accused becomes secondary, and the
act of one may be imputed to all the conspirators. In other words, a person
found in conspiracy with the actual perpetrator of the crime
by performing specific acts with such closeness and coordination as the one who
executed the criminal act is equally guilty as the latter, because, in the eyes
of the law, each conspirator is a co-principal and is equally guilty with the
other members of the plot. [11]
We also affirm the trial court’s finding
that the crime was attended by treachery. There is treachery
when the means, methods, and forms of execution gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and such means, methods, and
forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused
without danger to his person. What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself.[12] The essence of treachery is the swift and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the
slightest provocation.[13]
The victim was not prepared to meet
the initial attack made
by appellant as he was distracted by Oliver who greeted him, “Merry Christmas, insan!” He was then caught off guard by
the subsequent blows delivered by the other assailants, which were successive
and gave him no opportunity to defend himself. Moreover, he did not have the means
to defend himself as he was unarmed. Hence, treachery was clearly present.
In view of current
jurisprudence, we, however, modify the award of damages by increasing the
amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00, moral damages to P75,000.00,
and exemplary damages to P30,000.00.[14] As
to the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages, we find the same
reasonable under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals
Decision dated May 19, 2009 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that appellant is
ordered to pay the heirs of Ramon Relos, Sr. P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
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 Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, p. 10.
[2]
[3]
[4] Rollo, pp. 2-26.
[5]
[6]
[7] People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741, 752.
[8] People v. Delos
[9] People v. Cabrera, G.R. No. 105992,
February 1, 1995, 241 SCRA 28, 34.
[10] People v. Agpawan, 393 Phil. 434, 438 (2000).
[11] People v. Bermas, 369 Phil. 191, 233 (1999).
[12] People v. Sades, G.R. No. 171087, July 12, 2006, 494 SCRA 716, 727-728.
[13] People v. Bermas, supra, at 234.
[14] Virgilio
Bug-atan, Bernie Labandero, and Gregorio Manatad v. The People of the