EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
147201
January 15, 2004
-versus-
BENJAMIN SAYABOC Y
SEGUBA,
PATRICIO
ESCORPISO
Y VALDEZ,
MARLON BUENVIAJE
Y PINEDA,AND MIGUEL BUENVIAJE
Y FLORES,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is the decision
of 9 November 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya,
Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 2912 finding appellant Benjamin Sayaboc
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing
him
to suffer the penalty of death; and (2) finding appellant Marlon
Buenviaje
guilty as principal and appellants Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio
Escorpiso
guilty as accomplices in the crime of homicide.
On 17 April 1995, an
information was filed charging Benjamin Sayaboc, Patricio Escorpiso,
Marlon
Buenviaje, and Miguel Buenviaje with murder, the accusatory portion of
which reads as follows:
That on or about December
2, 1994, in the Municipality of Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping each other, and
who were then armed with a firearm, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously with evident premeditation, by means of treachery and
with
intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
person
of Joseph Galam y Antonio, by then and there suddenly firing at the
said
Joseph Galam y Antonio who has not given any provocation, thereby
inflicting
upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his
death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.[1]
At their arraignment,
appellants Benjamin Sayaboc, Patricio Escorpiso, and Miguel Buenviaje
pleaded
not guilty to the charge of murder. Marlon Buenviaje, who was arrested
only on 10 July 1997, also pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment.cralaw:red
The evidence for the
prosecution discloses as follows:
At about 9:00 a.m. of
13 August 1994, while prosecution witness Abel Ramos was at a
vulcanizing
shop in Barangay Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, he heard one Tessie
Pawid
screaming from across the road: "Enough, enough, enough!" In front of
her
were Marlon Buenviaje and Joseph Galam, who were engaged in a
fisticuff.
By the time Pawid was able to subdue the two men by standing between
them
and embracing Galam, Buenviaje’s face was already bloodied and Galam’s
shirt collar torn. As Buenviaje was leaving, he turned to face Galam
and,
with his right index finger making a slicing motion across his throat,
shouted: "Putang-ina mo Joseph, may araw ka rin, papatayin kita." Galam
retorted, "Gago, traydor, gold digger, halika." Buenviaje did not
respond
anymore and left on a tricycle.[2]
More than three months
thereafter, or on 2 December 1994, Galam was shot to death at the
Rooftop
Disco and Lodging House (Rooftop, for short) owned by him, which was
located
at Barangay Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to a waitress
of the Rooftop Diana Grace Sanchez Jaramillo, earlier or at 3:00 p.m.
of
that fateful day, a man whom she later identified as Benjamin Sayaboc
rang
the doorbell of the Rooftop and asked whether a woman wearing a green
t-shirt
had checked in. She answered in the negative. As she was about to
leave,
Sayaboc asked another question, "What time does your bosing arrive?"
She
replied that she did not know. She then went to the second floor of the
establishment.[3]
Tessie Pilar, the caretaker
of the lodging house, narrated that between 5:30 and 5:45 p.m. Sayaboc,
who was still seated in the swing beside the information counter with
his
hands tucked in the pocket of his jacket, ordered a bottle of beer. She
then went up to the kitchen, but was delayed in delivering the beer
because
she gave some instructions to the dishwasher. When she gave the beer to
Benjamin, the latter was angry and asked why it took her so long to
bring
the beer. Thereafter, she went upstairs and chatted with Jaramillo and
some other waitresses. Then the vehicle of Joseph Galam arrived.[4]
Shortly thereafter,
they heard four gunbursts emanating from the ground floor of the
building.
When Jaramillo looked down, she saw Sayaboc shooting Galam, causing the
latter to fall to the ground face up, with blood spurting out of his
chest.
Sayaboc forthwith ran out and disappeared into the darkness.[5]
Meanwhile, at about
5:30 p.m. of that fateful day, as Joselito Parungao, Chief Barangay
Tanod
of Barangay Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, was on his way to the
Kowloon
Restaurant located along the national road, he saw Marlon Buenviaje
with
his father Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso. The three were
aboard
a tricycle parked in a vacant lot between the Rooftop and Diego
Theater.
The younger Buenviaje was on the driver’s seat, while the older
Buenviaje
and Escorpiso were inside the sidecar. Parungao ordered pancit bihon.
While
he was waiting outside of the restaurant, he noticed that the tricycle
was still parked in the vacant lot, and the three occupants thereof
were
talking with each other. After getting his order and while he was
getting
out of the restaurant, Parungao heard four gunshots coming from behind
the Rooftop building. He thereafter saw a person, whom he later came to
know as Benjamin Sayaboc, walking briskly toward the tricycle and then
rode behind Marlon Buenviaje. Afterwards, the tricycle sped off towards
the center of the town.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The employees of the
Rooftop lost no time in bringing Galam to a hospital, where he was
declared
dead on arrival.[7]
Dr. Antonio R. Labasan, who conducted an autopsy on his cadaver, found
four gunshot wounds and opined that the first two of which were
inflicted
from behind and the last two were frontal.[8]
That evening, SPO4 Roberto
Cagungao, Chief Investigator of the Solano Police Station, assigned
some
investigators to go to the scene of the crime to gather evidence. At
about
10:00 to 11:00 p.m., he and Lt. Alejandro Parungao brought Pilar and
Jaramillo
to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame,
Quezon City. Pilar and Jaramillo were interviewed by the cartographic
artist,
who thereafter drew a cartographic sketch showing the face of the
assailant.[9]
On 8 March 1995, Pilar
and Jaramillo identified Benjamin Sayaboc at the PNP Provincial
Headquarters
in Bayombong as the gunman who shot Joseph Galam to death.[10]
On the afternoon of
that day, SPO4 Cagungao was called to the Provincial Command
Headquarters
in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, to take the statement of Sayaboc. When he
arrived at the headquarters he saw Sayaboc being interviewed by
reporters
inside the investigation room. He then brought Sayaboc to the inner
part
of the room. Before taking the statement of Sayaboc, he advised the
latter
of his constitutional rights. Then Sayaboc told him that he wanted to
have
a counsel of his own choice. But since Sayaboc could not name one,
Cagungao
asked the police officers to get a lawyer. Half an hour later, the
police
officers brought Atty. Rodolfo Cornejo of the PAO, who then conferred
with
Sayaboc for a while. After Cagungao heard Sayaboc say, "okay," he
continued
the investigation, during which Atty. Cornejo remained silent the
entire
time. However, Cagungao would stop questioning Sayaboc whenever Atty.
Cornejo
would leave to go to the comfort room.[11]
That night Sayaboc executed an extrajudicial confession[12]
in Ilocano dialect. He therein confessed to killing Joseph Galam at the
behest of Marlon Buenviaje for the sum of P100,000. He likewise
implicated
Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso. The confession was also signed
by Atty. Cornejo and attested to by one Fiscal Melvin Tiongson.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the hearing on 22
June 1999, after the prosecution rested its case, 1counsel for accused
Mike Buenviaje, Marlon Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso manifested that
he be given fifteen days to file a motion for leave to admit demurrer
to
the evidence.[13]
The trial court acceded. But instead of filing such motion first, he
filed
a Demurrer to Evidence on 12 July 1999.[14]
The motion for leave to file the pleading was filed the next day only.[15]
The trial court denied
the demurrer to evidence in an order[16]
issued on 16 August 1999. Further, it ruled that because of they did
not
seek nor were granted express leave of court prior to their filing of
the
demurrer to evidence, the Buenviajes and Escorpiso were deemed to have
submitted their case for judgment in accordance with Section 15, Rule
119
of the Rules of Court. Thus, only Sayaboc was allowed to proceed with
the
presentation of his defense.cralaw:red
Sayaboc denied having
committed the crime and proffered the defense of alibi. He also flatly
denied having met Atty. Cornejo or having been informed of his rights.
He testified to having been beaten by six or seven police officers in
the
investigating room, who then coerced him to confess to having killed
Galam.[17]
Apart from his testimony, he submitted a handwritten statement dated 20
March 1995[18]
and an affidavit dated 10 April 1995[19]
to support his claim of police brutality and retraction of his
confession.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its decision dated
9 November 2000,[20]
the trial court found Benjamin Sayaboc guilty of the crime of murder,
with
treachery as the qualifying circumstance and craft and price or reward
as aggravating circumstances. It then sentenced him to the maximum
penalty
of death. As for Marlon Buenviaje, Miguel Buenviaje, and Patricio
Escorpiso,
the court held that the treachery employed by Sayaboc could not be
taken
against them and, therefore, declared them guilty of the crime of
homicide
only, with the first as principal and the two others as accomplices.
Each
was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty and to pay solidarily
with Sayaboc the amounts of P115,000 as actual damages; P25,000 as
moral
damages; and the costs of the suit in favor of the heirs of Joseph
Galam.cralaw:red
From this decision,
the appellants raise the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT SAYABOC GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF
THE
CRIME OF MURDER AND SENTENCING HIM TO DEATH.
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO
THAT
ACCUSED SAYABOC IS GUILTY, HE IS GUILTY ONLY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE.
III
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED
SAYABOC
WHEN IT WAS TAKEN WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL NOR BY AN EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT COUNSEL.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING FATHER AND SON BUENVIAJE AND ACCUSED ESCORPISO LIKEWISE
GUILTY
WHEN IT DENIED THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY
THEMSELVES
AND COUNSEL AFTER THEY FILED THEIR DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY
WITHOUT
FIRST SEEKING EXPRESS LEAVE OF COURT.
In the first and second
assigned errors, the appellants contend that the crime committed by
Sayaboc
was homicide only, there being no proof of treachery because the two
eyewitnesses
did not see the commencement of the shooting. Besides, treachery, as
well
as evident premeditation, was not specifically designated as a
qualifying
circumstance in the information. Neither can the aggravating
circumstances
of craft and price or reward be appreciated because they were not
alleged
in the information, albeit proved during trial. Sections 8 and 9 of
Rule
110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require aggravating
and qualifying circumstances to be alleged in the information, are
beneficial
to the accused and should, therefore, be applied retroactively.cralaw:red
As to the third assigned
error, the appellants argue that the extrajudicial confession of
Sayaboc
may not be admitted in evidence against him because Atty. Cornejo, the
PAO lawyer who was his counsel during the custodial investigation, was
not a competent, independent, vigilant, and effective counsel. He was
ineffective
because he remained silent during the entire proceedings. He was not
independent,
as he was formerly a judge in the National Police Commission, which was
holding court inside the PNP Command of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, appellants
Marlon Buenviaje, Miguel Buenviaje, and Patricio Escorpiso claim that
they
were denied due process because they were not able to present evidence
in their defense. They ask this Court to relax the rule of criminal
procedure
in favor of enforcing their constitutional right to be heard by
themselves
and counsel.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that Sayaboc’s
extrajudicial
confession that he shot the victim in the back is adequate proof of
treachery.
Invoking People v. Aquino,[21]
the OSG contends that for treachery to be considered as a qualifying
circumstance,
it needs only to be specifically alleged in the information and does
not
have to be preceded by the words qualifying or qualified by. As to the
proven circumstances of craft and price or reward, the same cannot be
appreciated
because they were not specifically alleged in the information, as
required
by the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are applicable to
actions
that are pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OSG further asserts
that Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence
against
him, since it was made after he was informed of, and accorded, his
constitutional
rights, particularly the right to an independent counsel of his own
choice.
No evidence was adduced during the trial to substantiate the claim that
Atty. Cornejo used to be connected with the NAPOLCOM. Moreover, this
claim
was made for the first time in this appeal, and was based merely on an
information furnished by defense counsel Atty. Virgil Castro (now
deceased)
to Sayaboc’s counsel in this appeal, which makes the said information
hearsay
twice removed.cralaw:red
As to the fourth assigned
error, the OSG counters that no exceptional circumstance exists in this
case that may warrant the relaxation of the rule that the denial of a
unilateral
demurrer to evidence carries with it a waiver of the accused’s right to
present evidence.cralaw:red
Beginning with the admissibility
of Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession, we hold that such cannot be used
in evidence in this case.cralaw:red
Section 12 of Article
III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 12. (1) Any person
under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.cralaw:red
…
(3) Any confession or
admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.cralaw:red
Jurisprudence provides
that extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary.[22]
The condition for this presumption, however, is that the prosecution is
able to show that the constitutional requirements safeguarding an
accused’s
rights during custodial investigation have been strictly complied with,
especially when the extrajudicial confession has been denounced. The
rationale
for this requirement is to allay any fear that the person being
investigated
would succumb to coercion while in the unfamiliar or intimidating
environment
that is inherent in custodial investigations. Therefore, even if the
confession
may appear to have been given voluntarily since the confessant did not
file charges against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment,[23]
the failure to properly inform a suspect of his rights during a
custodial
investigation renders the confession valueless and inadmissible.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, contrary
to SPO4 Cagungao’s claim that he conferred with Sayaboc for half an
hour
informing him about his constitutional rights, the extrajudicial
confession
provides only the following:
PRELIMINARY: I would
like to inform you Mr. Sayaboc that questions will be asked to you
regarding
an incident last December 2, 1994 at the Rooftop, Brgy. Quezon, Solano,
Nueva Vizcaya, in connection with the shooting of Joseph Galam, owner
of
the said Disco House as a result of his death. Before questions will be
asked [of] you I would like to inform you about your ri[g]hts under the
new Constitution of the Philippines, as follows: That you have the
right
to remain silent or refuse to answer the questions which you think will
incriminate you; That you have the right to seek the services of a
counsel
of your own choice or if not, this office will provide you a lawyer if
you wish.cralaw:red
QUESTIONS: After informing
you all your constitutional rights, are you willing to give your true
statement
regarding the death of Joseph Galam?
ANSWER: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
QUESTIONS: Do you want
to get a lawyer to assist in this investigation?
ANSWER: Yes, sir. I
want to seek the assistance of Atty. Rodolfo Cornejo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
QUESTIONS: Atty. Rodolfo
Cornejo is here now, do you want him to assist you in this
investigation?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ANSWER: Yes, sir.[25]
Apart from the absence
of an express waiver of his rights, the confession contains the passing
of information of the kind held to be in violation of the right to be
informed
under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. In People v. Jara,[26]
the Court explained:
The stereotyped "advice"
appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions which are later
repudiated has assumed the nature of a "legal form" or model. Police
investigators
either automatically type it together with the curt "Opo" as the answer
or ask the accused to sign it or even copy it in their handwriting. Its
tired, punctilious, fixed, and artificially stately style does not
create
an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the
accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving
up
of a right is missing.cralaw:red
The right to be informed
requires "the transmission of meaningful information rather than just
the
ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle."[27]
It should allow the suspect to consider the effects and consequences of
any waiver he might make of these rights. More so when the suspect is
one
like Sayaboc, who has an educational attainment of Grade IV, was a
stranger
in Nueva Vizcaya, and had already been under the control of the police
officers for two days previous to the investigation, albeit for another
offense.cralaw:red
We likewise rule that
Sayaboc was not afforded his constitutional right to a competent
counsel.
While we are unable to rule on the unsubstantiated claim that Atty.
Cornejo
was partial to the police, still, the facts show through the
testimonies
of Sayaboc and prosecution witness SPO4 Cagungao that Atty. Cornejo
remained
silent throughout the duration of the custodial investigation. The
trial
court attributed the silence of Atty. Cornejo to the garrulous nature
and
intelligence of Sayaboc, thus:
As already stated, Sayaboc
was a garrulous man and intelligent. It was in his character for him to
want to be a central figure in a drama, albeit tragic – for others. He
would do what he wanted to do regardless of the advice of others.
Hence,
Atty. Cornejo could only advise him of his constitutional rights, which
was apparently done. The said counsel could not stop him from making
his
confession even if he did try.[28]
We find this explanation
unacceptable. That Sayaboc was a "garrulous" man who would "do what he
wanted to do regardless of the advice of others" is immaterial. The
waiver
of a right is within the rights of a suspect. What is lacking is a
showing,
to the satisfaction of this Court, of a faithful attempt at each stage
of the investigation to make Sayaboc aware of the consequences of his
actions.
If anything, it appears that Sayaboc’s counsel was ineffectual for
having
been cowed by his client’s enthusiasm to speak, or, worse, was
indifferent
to it.cralaw:red
The right to a competent
and independent counsel means that the counsel should satisfy himself,
during the conduct of the investigation, that the suspect understands
the
import and consequences of answering the questions propounded. In
People
v. Deniega,[29]
we said:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The desired role of
counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered
meaningless
if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a
meaningful
advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the
advice
given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired.cralaw:red
This is not to say that
a counsel should try to prevent an accused from making a confession.
Indeed,
as an officer of the court, it is an attorney’s duty to, first and
foremost,
seek the truth. However, counsel should be able, throughout the
investigation,
to explain the nature of the questions by conferring with his client
and
halting the investigation should the need arise. The duty of a lawyer
includes
ensuring that the suspect under custodial investigation is aware that
the
right of an accused to remain silent may be invoked at any time.cralaw:red
We understand the difficulty
and frustration of police investigators in obtaining evidence to bring
criminals to justice. But even the hardest of criminals have rights
that
cannot be interfered with. Those tasked with the enforcement of the law
and who accuse those who violate it carry the burden of ensuring that
all
evidence obtained by them in the course of the performance of their
duties
are untainted with constitutional infirmity. The purpose of the
stringent
requirements of the law is to protect all persons, especially the
innocent
and the weak, against possible indiscriminate use of the powers of the
government. Any deviation cannot be tolerated, and any fruit of such
deviation
shall be excluded from evidence.cralaw:red
For these reasons, the
extrajudicial confession of Sayaboc cannot be used in evidence against
him. We hold, however, that the prosecution has discharged its burden
of
proving his guilt for the crime of homicide.cralaw:red
From the records of
the case, there can be no doubt that Sayaboc shot and killed Galam in
the
early evening of 2 December 1994. He was seen waiting at the Rooftop
from
3:00 to 6:00 p.m. of that day, shooting Galam shortly after the
latter’s
arrival, and fleeing from the scene of the crime to a waiting tricycle.
Credible witnesses described Sayaboc’s appearance to the police soon
after
the shooting incident and prepared affidavits about the incident. They
identified Sayaboc at the police station while he was in custody,
during
the preliminary investigation, and, again, in open court. Such positive
identification constitutes more than sufficient direct evidence to
uphold
the finding that Sayaboc was Galam’s killer. It cannot just be rebutted
by Sayaboc’s bare denial and weak alibi.cralaw:red
Appellants’ claim that
the information against them is insufficient for failure to
specifically
state that treachery and evident premeditation were qualifying
circumstances
holds no water. In People v. Aquino,[30]
we held that even after the recent amendments to the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive
words such as qualifying or qualified by to properly qualify an
offense.
Nevertheless, from our review of the case, we find that neither evident
premeditation nor treachery has been sufficiently proved to qualify the
crime to murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is treachery when
the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 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. Thus, two conditions must be
present:
(1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend
himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him. For treachery to be
appreciated,
it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of
the
attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its
perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[31]
In this case, the trial
court concluded that the fact that the witnesses did not hear any shout
or conversation between the assailant and the victim immediately before
the attack could only mean that Sayaboc had approached his victim
through
stealth.[32]
While not improbable, that conclusion is merely an inference. The fact
remains that none of the witnesses testified as to how the aggression
began.
The witnesses testified having heard four shots, the last two of which
were seen as having been fired while Sayaboc was facing Galam. The
autopsy
conducted by Dr. Labasan reveals two frontal wounds at the thigh and
the
shoulder, and two wounds on the right side of Galam’s back. Although it
is plausible that the initial shots were fired from behind, such
inference
is insufficient to establish treachery.[33]
Neither can we appreciate
evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance. Evident
premeditation
exists when it is shown that the execution of a criminal act is
preceded
by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal
intent. The requisites of evident premeditation are (1) the time when
the
accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating
that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse
of
time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon
the circumstances of his act.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Without the extrajudicial
confession narrating when Sayaboc was hired to kill Galam, the
testimony
that the former inquired about the latter while waiting in the Rooftop
from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. of that fateful day does not prove the time
when Sayaboc decided to kill Galam. Settled is the rule that when it is
not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had
elapsed
before that plan was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be
considered.[35]
The aggravating circumstances
of craft and price or reward, even if proved, can neither be considered
because they were not specifically alleged in the information. Section
8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires
that
the information specify the aggravating circumstances attending the
commission
of the crime for it to be considered in the imposition of penalty. This
requirement is beneficial to an accused and may, therefore, be given
retroactive
effect.[36]
Thus, appellant Benjamin
Sayaboc can be found guilty of the crime of homicide only, which is
punishable
by reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances
appreciated for or against him, the penalty to be imposed upon him
should
be in the medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he
should
be meted a penalty whose minimum is within the range of prision mayor
and
whose maximum is within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium
period.cralaw:red
We cannot subscribe
to the contention of appellants Marlon Buenviaje, Miguel Buenviaje, and
Patricio Escorpiso that the case should be remanded to the trial court
because they were denied the right to be heard by the trial court. It
must
be remembered that their demurrer to evidence filed on 12 July 1999 was
without prior leave of court. The motion for leave to file the said
pleading
was filed only the next day. The filing of the demurrer was clearly
without
leave of court. The trial court, therefore, correctly applied the rule
on demurrer to evidence found in Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules
of Criminal Procedure when it disallowed the abovementioned appellants
to present evidence on their behalf.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The filing of a demurrer
to evidence without leave of court is an unqualified waiver of the
right
to present evidence for the accused.[37]
The rationale for this rule is that when the accused moves for
dismissal
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution evidence,
he does so in the belief that said evidence is insufficient to convict
and, therefore, any need for him to present any evidence is negated. An
accused cannot be allowed to wager on the outcome of judicial
proceedings
by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by convenience.
The purpose behind the rule is also to avoid the dilatory practice of
filing
motions for dismissal as a demurrer to the evidence and, after denial
thereof,
the defense would then claim the right to present its evidence.[38]
The trial court, therefore,
correctly applied Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure
on demurrer to evidence when it disallowed the abovementioned
appellants
to present evidence on their behalf. They cannot now claim that they
were
denied their right to be heard by themselves and counsel.cralaw:red
On the basis of the
evidence for the prosecution, we find the existence of conspiracy
between
Marlon Buenviaje and Sayaboc.cralaw:red
It has been held that
price or reward is evidence of conspiracy.[39]
But the same was not established by competent proof in this case. The
extrajudicial
confession[40]
and the newspaper reports[41]
adduced by the prosecution, which both contained Sayaboc’s statement
pointing
to Marlon Buenviaje as the one who paid him P100,000 to kill Galam, are
inadmissible in evidence. The first, as earlier stated, was executed in
violation of Sayaboc’s constitutional rights. The second are hearsay,
since
the authors of such reports were not presented as witnesses to affirm
the
veracity thereof.[42]
Conspiracy need not,
however, be established by direct proof; it may be shown by
circumstantial
evidence.[43]
As correctly found by the trial court and concurred with by the OSG,
the
concatenation of circumstantial evidence shows that Marlon Buenviaje
conspired
with Sayaboc, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. On 13 August 1994,
Marlon Buenviaje had a fistfight with Joseph Galam, causing him
injuries
on his face and prompting him to make a threat to kill the latter;[44]
2. More than three months
later, Galam was killed by Sayaboc, who had no discernible motive to do
so;[45]
3. Shortly after shooting
Galam, Sayaboc joined Marlon Buenviaje and the other appellants in the
tricycle, which was waiting in a vacant lot near the crime scene;[46]
4. The tricycle driven
by Marlon Buenviaje sped away and disappeared;[47]
5. Marlon Buenviaje
became a fugitive from justice for a long time, or until 10 July 1997;
and
6. During the pendency
of the case, the relatives of Marlon Buenviaje offered prosecution
eyewitness
Diana Grace Jaramillo a job abroad, allowances, and two motorcycles in
consideration of her retraction of her testimony against Sayaboc.[48]
Circumstantial evidence
is sufficient for conviction when (1) there is more than one
circumstances
established; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived have
been
proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. All these requisites are
present in the case at bar. Being a conspirator equally guilty as
Sayaboc,
Marlon Buenviaje must be meted the same penalty as that of Sayaboc.cralaw:red
However, as to Miguel
Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso, there is paucity of evidence linking
them to the killing. They might have been with Marlon Buenviaje in that
tricycle, but there is nothing to show that they knew of the conspiracy
to kill Galam. Absent any active participation in furtherance of the
common
design or purpose to kill Galam, their mere presence near the crime
scene
or in the tricycle driven by Marlon Buenviaje does not necessarily make
them conspirators. Even knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act
– without the cooperation and the agreement to cooperate – is not
enough
to establish conspiracy.[49]
Now on the civil liability
of Sayaboc and Marlon Buenviaje. The trial court’s award of actual
damages,
representing the wake and burial expenses, is reduced to P106,436, this
being the amount supported by receipts. The award of moral damages is,
however, increased to P50,000 conformably with current jurisprudence.[50]
In addition, the heirs of the victim are entitled to P50,000 as civil
indemnity
ex delicto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Ecija, Branch 27, in
Criminal
Case No. 2912 is MODIFIED. Appellants Benjamin Sayaboc and Marlon
Buenviaje
are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and
are
each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of
prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay jointly and severally the
heirs
of Joseph Galam the amounts of P106,436 as actual damages; P50,000 as
civil
indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and the cost of the suit.
Appellants
Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso are hereby ACQUITTED on the
ground
of reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Original Record (OR), 1-2.
[2]
TSN, 25 August 1998, 8-21; 22 September 1998, 7-8.
[3]
TSN,12 October 1995, 5-6, 9-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, 7 September 1995, 7, 10-18.
[5]
TSN, 7 September 1995, 14-23; TSN, 12 September 1995, 26, 34-35; TSN,
28
February 1996, 7-15.
[6]
TSN, 23 April 1996, 4-15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, 7 September 1995, 23; TSN, 28 February 1996, 23; TSN, 11 March
1999,
4-5.
[8]
TSN, 31 January 1996, 2-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, 23 February 1999 (9:40 a.m.), 10, 15-18.
[10]
TSN, 29 February 1996, 5- 7; TSN, 12 September 1995, 26.
[11]
TSN, 23 February 1999 (3:30 p.m.) 18-27, 34.
[12]
OR, 531-535.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
OR, 542.
[14]
Id., 550-556.
[15]
Id., 557.
[16]
Id., 560-561.
[17]
TSN,25 August 1999, 4-11; TSN, 7 September 1999,4-6.
[18]
OR, 186.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., 187.
[20]
Id., 711-724.
[21]
G.R. Nos. 144340-42, 6 August 2002, 386 SCRA 391.
[22]
People v. Hernandez, 347 Phil 56 (1997).
[23]
People v. Continente, G.R. Nos. 100801-02, 25 August 2000, 339 SCRA 1,
24.
[24]
See People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, 8 December 1999, 320 SCRA 140,
166;
See also People v. Suela, G.R. Nos. 133570-71, 15 January 2002, 373
SCRA
163, 185-186.
[25]
OR, 531, English Translation.
[26]
L-61356-57, 30 September 1986, 144 SCRA 516, 530-53.
[27]
People v. Basay, G.R. No. 86941, 3 March 1993, 219 SCRA 404, 418.
[28]
Rollo, 80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
321 Phil. 1028, 1043 (1995).
[30]
Supra note 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
People v. Loterono, G.R. No. 146100, 13 November 2002, 391 SCRA 593,
605.
[32]
Rollo, 76.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
People v. Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, 26 March 1990, 183 SCRA 658, 668; See
also People v. Sambulan, G.R. No. 112972, 24 April 1998, 289 SCRA 500.
[34]
People v. Rabanillo, 367 Phil. 114 (1999); People v. Bariquit, G.R. No.
122733, 2 October 2000, 341 SCRA 600, 627; People v. Enriquez, G. R.
No.
138264, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 269, 288.
[35]
People v. Basao, G.R. No. 128286, 20 July 1999, 310 SCRA 743, 780;
People
v. Magno, G.R. No. 134535, 19 January 2000, 322 SCRA 494.
[36]
People v. Salalima, 415 Phil. 414 (2001); People v. Moreno, G.R. No.
140033,
25 January 2002, 374 SCRA 667, 680; People v. Mactal, G. R. No. 141187,
28 April 2003.
[37]
People v. Turingan, G.R. No. 121628, 4 December 1997, 282 SCRA 424, 447.
[38]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People v. Tiguman, G.R. Nos. 130502-02, 24 May 2001.
[40]
Exh. "Z," (English Translation), OR 531.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
Exhs. "E" and "F," OR, 510-511.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
People v. Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, 20 July 1999. See also People v.
Fajardo,
G.R. No. 105954-55, 28 September 1999; People v. Geralde, G.R. No.
128622,
14 December 2000.
[43]
People v. Morano, G.R. No. 129235, 18 November 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
TSN, 25 August 1998, 13-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
TSN, 28 February 1996, 8-9.
[46]
TSN, 23 April 1996 (10:00 a.m.), 12-14.
[47]
TSN, 7 September 1995, 15-17.
[48]
TSN, 29 February 1996, 11-12, 19-21.
[49]
People v. Mandao, G.R. No. 135048, 3 December 2002.
[50]
People v. Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, 27 October 2003. |