SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
111098-99
April 3, 2003
-versus-
PIO BISO ALIAS "BISOY"
AND EDUARDO
YALONG ALIAS "BULOY,"
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Before us, on appeal,
is the decision,[1]
dated June 9, 1987, of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31,
in
Criminal Cases Nos. 84-24430 and 84-25774, finding Pio Biso and Eduardo
Yalong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay
in solidum the heirs of the victim Dario Pacaldo the amount of P50,000
as civil indemnity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Antecedents
At a little past 12:00
midnight on February 16, 1984, Dario Pacaldo, a black belt in karate,
entered
an eatery located in Masinop, Tondo, Manila, owned by Augustina
Yalong.
He seated himself beside Teresita Yalong, the 14-year-old daughter of
Augustina
Yalong. He made sexual advances on Teresita in the presence of
her
brother, Eduardo (Buloy). Dario embraced and touched Teresita’s
private
parts. As Dario was older, bigger, taller and huskier than
Eduardo,
the latter and Teresita could do nothing but to shout for help from
their
mother Augustina. However, before Augustina could do anything,
Dario
left the eatery and proceeded to the nearby Gereli Pub House and Disco.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Augustina and Teresita
rushed to the house of Barangay Captain Lachica for assistance.
Although
he was out of the house, his wife Dolores Lachica accompanied Augustina
and Teresita to the police station where Teresita and Augustina lodged
a complaint against Dario. Policemen and the three women
proceeded
to the nearby Gereli Pub House and Disco where Dario was apprehended by
the police officers. They brought him to the Tondo Police Station
where he tried to settle the matter with Augustina and Teresita by
offering
to pay them P200. However, the two rejected his offer. An
investigation
ensued but Dario was released. Augustina and Teresita were told
to
return to the station in the morning for them to file the appropriate
criminal
complaint against Dario.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 1:00 a.m.,
Eduardo contacted his cousin, Pio G. Biso (Bisoy), an ex-convict and a
known toughie in the area, and related to him what Dario had done to
Teresita.
Eduardo and Pio, Boy Madang and Butso decided to confront Dario.
They waited in an alley near the well-lighted Masinop Street for his
arrival.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At or about 1:20 a.m.,
Eduardo became impatient when Dario had not yet arrived. Eduardo
went to the house of Dario and knocked on the door. When Carmen
Augusto,
the house helper of the Pacaldos, opened the door, she was surprised to
see Eduardo at the door. The latter inquired if Dario was at home
already. When told that Dario had not yet arrived, Eduardo and
Pio,
Boy Madang and Butso positioned themselves in the alley near the house
of Dario. Carmen noticed that Eduardo and his companions were
conversing.
Momentarily, Dario arrived on board a taxicab. Eduardo and Pio,
Boy
Madang and Butso assaulted Dario. Porfirio Perdigones who was on
his way home from work was startled when he saw the assault. He
saw
Eduardo hold, with his right hand, the wrist of Dario and cover with
his
left hand the mouth of Dario. He also saw Boy Madang and Butso
hold
Dario’s right hand and hair. Pio then stabbed Dario near the
breast
with a fan knife. Petrified, Porfirio fled to his house.
Eduardo
stabbed Dario and fled with his three companions from the scene.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dario was able to crawl
to their house and knocked at the door. His younger brother
Felixberto
was shocked when he opened the door and saw Dario bloodied all
over.
Their father Roberto was so incensed when he saw Dario mortally
wounded.
When Roberto asked Dario who assaulted him, Dario identified Eduardo
with
the help of three others. Roberto and Felixberto then called for
help to bring Dario to the hospital. Dario motioned that it was
pointless
for him to be brought to the hospital. However, Roberto and
Felixberto
insisted, and brought Dario to the nearby Mary Johnston Hospital.
On the way, Dario told his father that he was stabbed by Eduardo, at
the
same time flashing three fingers. Dario likewise told his brother
Felixberto that his assailants were Eduardo, Pio, Boy Madang and
Butso.
Dario died upon arrival in the hospital.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 5:30 a.m.,
Porfirio went to the house of Roberto and told the latter that earlier
at about 1:00 a.m., he saw Pio and three others assaulting Dario.
He also told Roberto that he cannot recall their names but can recall
their
faces. He likewise told Roberto that Pio used a fan knife
(balisong)
in stabbing Dario.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Roberto reported the
incident to the homicide section of the Tondo Police Station.
Police
officers arrested Pio. However, Eduardo managed to elude the
police
officers and went into hiding. After a month, Eduardo was
arrested
in Pampanga.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, Dario’s
cadaver was autopsied by Dr. Marcial G. Cenido. The doctor
prepared
a report on his autopsy which reads:
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
EXTERNAL INJURIES
AND
EXTENSIONS INTERNALLY:
1. Penetrating stab
wound, left upper anterior thorax, 122 cm, from the heel, 6.5 cm. left
of anterior midline, measuring 1.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. in depth, thru 2nd
left
inter-costal space, cutting upper border of the 3rd costal cartilage,
directed
obliquely backwards, slightly upwards and towards the midline
perforating
the pericardium, incising the upper lobe of the left lung about the
hilus;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Penetratinf (sic)
stab wound, left posterior lumbar, 98 cm. from the heel, 12 cm. left of
posterior midline, measuring 2 cm. x 0.9 cm. x 10.5 cm. in depth,
directed
obliquely forwards, slightly upwards and towards the midline and
piercing
the descending colon of the large intestine; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Deep abrasion, right
chin and which measures 1 cm. x 0.2 cm.
INTERNAL FINDINGS:
1. Stab wounds of the
internal organs and tissue indicated under the internal extensions of
the
external wounds items 1 & 2, with generalized pallor;
2. Massive left hemothorax
with a very small amount of blood recovered from the abdominal cavity;
and
3. Recovered from the
stomach a small amount of viscid/without alcoholic odor.
CAUSE OF DEATH
Penetrating stab wounds,
left anterior thorax and posterior lumbar.[3]
Pio Biso was charged
with murder in an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 84-24430
which
reads:
That on or about February
16, 1984, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring
and confederating with three others whose true names, identities and
present
whereabouts are unknown and helping one another did then and there
wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, and with treachery and
evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon
one
Dario Pacaldo y Luega by then and there stabbing the latter with the
use
of a bladed weapon thereby inflicting upon him mortal stab wounds which
were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.[4]
A separate Information
for murder was filed against Eduardo with the said court docketed as
Criminal
Case No. 84-25774 which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about February
16, 1984, in the city of Manila, Philippines, the said accused
conspiring
and confederating with Pio G. Biso who was also charged with the
Regional
Trial Court of Manila docketed under Criminal Case No. 24430, and two
others
whose true names, real identities and present whereabouts are still
unknown
and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,
with premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one,
Dario Pacaldo y Luega, by there and then stabbing him with a "balisong"
on the left chest and on the left portion of the back, thereby
inflicting
upon the said Danilo Pacaldo y Luega mortal wounds which were the
direct
and immediate cause of his death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.[5]
When arraigned on May
13, 1984 and January 3, 1985, respectively, Pio Biso and Edruardo
Yalong,
assisted by their counsel, pleaded not guilty.[6]
The proceedings in the two cases were consolidated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for the Accused
Pio denied any participation
in the stabbing and the consequent death of Dario, the victim. He
averred that he was in his house, sleeping with his common-law wife
Myrna
when Dario was stabbed to death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Eduardo, on the other
hand, admitted stabbing Dario. However, he stressed that it was
he
alone who stabbed the victim. He furthered that he had no
intention
of killing the victim. On March 20, 1984, Eduardo gave the same
statement
to the police officers admitting having stabbed the victim.[7]
He related that after having coffee at a nearby store, he saw the
victim
who was seemingly drunk alighting from a taxicab. Upon seeing
Eduardo,
Dario shouted "Nagreklamo pa kayo ay halagang dalawang daang piso lang
kayo." To which Eduardo replied "Kami na nga ang naagrabyado ay
kayo
pa ang matapang." Dario slapped Eduardo so hard that he was
pushed
to the wall. Eduardo asked Dario "Ano ba ang kasalanan ko?"
Dario replied "Matapang ka ha." Simultaneously, he took out his
"balisong"
and lunged at Eduardo. However, Eduardo was able to parry the
thrust
and wrest the knife from Dario. Eduardo then swung the knife to
Dario,
hitting the latter on the chest. Eduardo fled from the scene of
crime
and went into hiding.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 9, 1987, the
court a quo rendered a decision, finding Pio and Eduardo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer
the
penalty of reclusion perpetua:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds both accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
Murder
qualified by treachery and evident premeditation not offset by any
mitigating
circumstances and the Court hereby sentences each of them to suffer
imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ordering both accused
to indemnify the heirs of Dario Pacaldo y Luega the sum of P50,000.00.cralaw:red
Ordering both accused
to pay litigation expenses and the costs of this proceedings.[8]
The accused appealed
from the decision of the court.[9]
After filing his brief
with this Court on June 12, 1999, Pio filed a motion dated January 20,
2000 praying for the withdrawal of his appeal. After verifying
the
veracity and the voluntariness of the motion, the Court, in a
Resolution
dated October 16, 2000, granted the said motion and declared the case
closed
and terminated as to Pio Biso.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Eduardo filed
his brief contending that:
I
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION ATTENDED THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
II
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER.[11]
The appellant posits
that the prosecution failed to prove beyond cavil of doubt that he
killed
the victim with treachery and evident premeditation. Hence, he is
guilty only of homicide and not of murder. He avers that the
prosecution
failed to prove the essential requisites for evident
premeditation.
The trial court, on the other hand, stated in its decision that evident
premeditation attended the commission of the crime:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There was evident premeditation
as shown by the burning hatred of accused Eduardo Yalong to avenge the
dishonor of his sister Teresita Yalong who was earlier mashed and
sexually
molested by the deceased in the presence of said accused Yalong.
Accused Yalong had a score to settle with the deceased Pacaldo, so he
sought
out the help of his ex-convict first cousin Pio Biso, who, together
with
two (2) others waited at the scene of the crime for more than one (1)
hour
near the house of the deceased until his arrival, thereafter they were
able to carry out their plan when deceased arrived after midnight.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the appellant.cralaw:red
Case law has it that
qualifying circumstances must be proved with the same quantum of
evidence
as the crime itself.[13]
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution is
required
to prove the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly
indicating
that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient
interval
of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to
allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Evident premeditation
is not presumed from mere lapse of time. The prosecution is
burdened
to prove that the malefactors had decided to commit a crime and
performed
an "act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung" to a
previous
determination to kill.[15]
It must be shown that there was a period sufficient to afford full
opportunity
for meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the conscience
to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as outward acts showing
the intent to kill.[16]
The premeditation to kill should be plain and notorious. In the
absence
of clear and positive evidence proving this aggravating circumstance,
mere
presumptions and inferences thereon, no matter how logical and
probable,
would not be enough.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Evident premeditation
must be established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused
persistently
and continuously clung to this resolution despite the lapse of
sufficient
time for them to clear their minds and overcome their determination to
commit the same.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the prosecution
established that the appellant, incensed at seeing the victim molesting
his younger sister Teresita, went to Pio, a notorious toughie in the
area,
and with two cohorts, proceeded to the house of the victim to confront
him but failed to see the victim. However, the prosecution failed
to prove that the four intended to kill Dario and if they did intend to
kill him, the prosecution failed to prove how the malefactors intended
to consummate the crime. Except for the fact that the appellant
and
his three companions waited in an alley for Dario to return to his
house,
the prosecution failed to prove any overt acts on the part of the
appellant
and his cohorts showing that that they had clung to any plan to kill
the
victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not agree with
the appellant’s contention that treachery was not attendant in the
commission
of the crime.cralaw:red
For treachery to be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, the prosecution must
establish
that (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person
attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; (b) the means of
execution
is deliberately or consciously adopted.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution discharged
its burden. Porfirio Perdigones testified how appellant
Pio,
and their cohorts killed Dario with treachery:
Q: When
did you see that Dario Pakaldo (sic) was killed by Pio Biso and his
companions?
A:
February 16, 1984 about 1:00 in the morning at Masinop St., Tondo,
Manila.cralaw:red
Q: How did
Pio Biso and his companions killed (sic) Dario Pakaldo?
A:
I saw how Dario was killed by Pio Biso, sir. One was holding his
right hand, one was holding his left hand, one was holding his head
this
way, sir. (witness demonstrating that the fellow hold (sic) Dario
on his head, holding his hand at the mouth and other hand at the head
and
he was stabbed by Pio Biso).[20]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dario was powerless
to defend himself or retaliate against the appellant and his cohorts.[21]
By their collective and simultaneous acts, the appellant and his
cohorts
deliberately and consciously insured the consummation of the
crime.
In sum, the appellant is guilty of murder as defined and penalized
under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Proper Penalty for
the Crime
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the crime was
committed in 1984, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death. The appellant testified that he was 17
years
old at the time of the commission of the crime. In his sworn
statement
to the police authorities, he also claimed that he was 17 years old.[22]
The prosecution did not adduce any evidence to disprove the evidence of
the appellant. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 63 of the Revised
Penal
Code.[23]
Considering that the appellant was 17 years old at the time of the
commission
of the felony, the imposable penalty should be reduced by one
degree.
Hence, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision mayor in its
maximum
period to reclusion temporal in its medium period with a range of from
ten years and one day to seventeen years and four months.
Although
the crime was committed at nighttime, there is no evidence that the
appellant
and his companions took advantage of nighttime or that nighttime
facilitated
the commission of the crime. Hence, nighttime is not aggravating
in the commission of the crime.[24]
The crime was committed by a band. However, band was not alleged
in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules
of Criminal Procedure.[25]
Although the new rule took effect on December 1, 2000 long after the
crime
was committed, the same shall be applied retroactively being favorable
to the appellant.[26]
Taking into account the indeterminate sentence law, the appellant
should
be meted an indeterminate penalty of seven years and one day of prision
mayor in its medium period as minimum, to twelve years, five months and
eleven days of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Civil Liabilities of
the Appellant
The trial court correctly
ordered the appellant to pay to the heirs of the victim Dario Pacaldo,
P50,000 by way of civil indemnity.[27]
The heirs of the victim are not entitled to moral damages as none of
the
heirs testified for the prosecution on the factual basis for said
award.
The heirs are also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000
conformably with the ruling of the Court in People v. Catubig.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Verdict of the Courtchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
31,
is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant is found
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal
Code and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from seven years
and
one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years, five months and
eleven
days of prision mayor as maximum. He is ordered to pay to the
heirs
of the victim Dario Pacaldo, the amount of P50,000 as civil
indemnity
and P25,000 as exemplary damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Regino T. Veridiano II.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Exhibit "3," paragraph 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibit "D."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Records, p. 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 181.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, p. 173.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "3."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Original Records, pp. 182-183.
[9]
Id. at 184-185.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, p. 234.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., at 245.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Records, pp. 182-183.
[13]
People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003.
[14]
People v. Sison, 312 SCRA 792 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Sol, 272 SCRA 393 (1997).
[16]
People v. Tabones, 304 SCRA 781 (1999).
[17]
People v. Mahinay, 304 SCRA 767 (1999).
[18]
People v. Manes, 303 SCRA 231 (1999).
[19]
People v. Silvestre, 307 SCRA 68 (1999).
[20]
TSN, April 23, 1985, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Daroy, 336 SCRA 24 (2000).
[22]
Exhibit "3"; TSN, February 9, 1987, p. 3.
[23]
People v. Chua, 339 SCRA 405 (2000).
[24]
People v. Lumacang, 324 SCRA 254 (2000).
[25]
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or
information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver
the
acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the
offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the
statute
punishing it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 132481, August 14, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Sanchez, 313 SCRA 254 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
363 SCRA 621 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |