Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2013 > January 2013 Decisions > G.R. No. 177751 : January 07, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FLORENCIO AGACER, EDDIE AGACER, ELYNOR AGACER, FRANKLIN AGACER AND ERIC***AGACER, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.:

For resolution is appellants' Motion for Reconsideration¹ςrνl1 of our December 14, 2011 Decision²ςrνl1 affirming their conviction for the murder of Cesario Agacer, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the November 17, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01543 which affirmed the August 7, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Aparri, Cagayan, finding appellants Florencio, Franklin, Elynor, Eddie and Eric, all surnamed Agacer, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, with the following modifications:

(1) actual damages is DELETED;

(2) the appellants are ORDERED to pay the heirs of Cesario Agacer P25,000.0 as temperate damages; and

(3) the appellants are ORDERED to pay the heirs of Cesario Agacer interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the amounts of damages awarded, commencing from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.cralawlibrary

Costs against appellants.cralawlibrary

SO ORDERED.³ςrνl1

Appellants assert that their mere presence at the scene of the crime is not evidence of conspiracy;⁴ςrνl1 that there was no treachery since a heated argument preceded the killing of the victim;⁵ςrνl1 and that even assuming that their guilt was duly established, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should have been appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin Agacer (Franklin) who was only 16 years and 106 days old at the time of the incident, having been born on December 21, 1981.⁶ςrνl1

In our February 13, 2012 Resolution,⁷ςrνl1 we required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the Motion for Reconsideration particularly on the issue of Franklin's minority.cralawlibrary

Meanwhile, in a letter⁸ςrνl1 dated June 8, 2012, the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison, informed us that appellant Florencio Agacer (Florencio) died on February 17, 2007, as evidenced by the attached Certificate of Death indicating cardio pulmonary arrest secondary to status asthmaticus as the cause of death.⁹ςrνl1

The OSG, in its Comment,¹⁰ςrνl1 asserts that there exists no cogent reason to disturb our findings and conclusions as to the guilt of the appellants since the facts and evidence clearly established conspiracy and treachery. However, it did not oppose and even agreed with appellants' argument that minority should have been appreciated as a privileged mitigating circumstance in favor of Franklin, the same being duly supported by a copy of Franklin's Certificate of Live Birth secured from the National Statistics Office (NSO) Document Management Division.¹¹ςrνl1

Issues

Hence, the following issues for our resolution:

1. � Was the evidence sufficient to establish the existence of conspiracy and treachery in the commission of the crime charged?

2. � Should the mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin?

3. � Does the death of appellant Florencio extinguish his criminal and civil liabilities?

Our Ruling

There is partial merit in appellants' Motion for Reconsideration.cralawlibrary

Reiterated Arguments in a Motion for
Reconsideration Do Not Need a New
Judicial Determination.

Appellants' contention that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to prove conspiracy and treachery is a mere rehash of their argument set forth in their brief, "which we already considered, weighed and resolved before we rendered the Decision sought to be reconsidered.”¹²ςrνl1 It is not a new issue that needs further judicial determination.¹³ςrνl1 � There is therefore no necessity to discuss and rule again on this ground since "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant.”¹⁴ςrνl1

As a Minor, Franklin is Entitled to the
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance of
Minority.

Nevertheless, we agree with appellants that Franklin is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. � Franklin's Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on December 20, 1981, hence, was merely 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime on April 2, 1998. � He is therefore entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code. � It provides that when the offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period. � The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because of his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment.¹⁵ςrνl1 � This is regardless of the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented for our consideration, since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state, the victim and his heirs.cralawlibrary

Penalty to be Imposed Upon Franklin.

Pursuant to the above discussion, the penalty imposed upon Franklin must be accordingly modified. � The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. � A degree lower is reclusion temporal.¹⁶ςrνl1 � There being no aggravating and ordinary mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on Franklin should be reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.¹⁷ςrνl1 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor, the medium period of which ranges from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. � Due to the seriousness of the crime and the manner it was committed, the penalty must be imposed at its most severe range.cralawlibrary

The Death of Florencio Prior to Our
Final Judgment Extinguishes His
Criminal Liability and Civil Liability
Ex Delicto.

On the effect of the death of appellant Florencio on his criminal liability, Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Art. 89. � How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished.cralawlibrary

1. � By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;

x x x x

It is also settled that "[u]pon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal.”¹⁸ςrνl1

While Florencio died way back on February 7, 2007, the said information was not timely relayed to the Court, such that we were unaware of the same when we rendered our December 14, 2011 Decision. � It was only later that we were informed of Florencio's death through the June 8, 2012 letter of the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison. � Due to this development, it therefore becomes necessary for us to declare Florencio's criminal liability as well as his civil liability ex delicto to have been extinguished by his death prior to final judgment. � The judgment of conviction is thus set aside insofar as Florencio is concerned.cralawlibrary

WHEREFORE, appellants' Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. � Our Decision dated December 14, 2011 is MODIFIED as follows: (a) appellant Franklin Agacer � is sentenced to suffer the penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, and (b) the criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto of appellant Florencio Agacer are declared EXTINGUISHED by his death prior to final judgment. � The judgment of conviction against him is therefore SET ASIDE.cralawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro, (Acting Chairperson), Bersamin, Abad,^**ςrνl1 and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.cralawlibrary

Endnotes:

---

^*ςrνl1 Deceased as of February 7, 2007. Rollo, p. 100.cralawlibrary

^**ςrνl1 Per raffle dated November 14, 2012.cralawlibrary

^***ςrνl1 Also spelled as Erick in some parts of the records.cralawlibrary

¹ςrνl1 Rollo, pp. 88-93.cralawlibrary

²ςrνl1 Id. at 67-82.cralawlibrary

³ςrνl1 Id. at 81.cralawlibrary

⁴ςrνl1 Id. at 89.cralawlibrary

⁵ςrνl1 Id. at 89-90.cralawlibrary

⁶ςrνl1 Id. at 90-91.cralawlibrary

⁷ςrνl1 Id. at 94.cralawlibrary

⁸ςrνl1 Id. at 99.cralawlibrary

⁹ςrνl1 Id. at 100.cralawlibrary

¹⁰ςrνl1 Id. at 111-122.cralawlibrary

¹¹ςrνl1 Id. at 121.cralawlibrary

¹²ςrνl1 People v. Larrañaga, 502 Phil. 231, 240 (2005).cralawlibrary

¹³ςrνl1 Id.cralawlibrary

¹⁴ςrνl1 Id. at 239-240, citing Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, 324 Phil. 483, 491 (1996).cralawlibrary

¹⁵ςrνl1 People v. Larrañaga, 516 Phil. 524, 525 (2006).cralawlibrary

¹⁶ςrνl1 Id. at 529.cralawlibrary

¹⁷ςrνl1 Id.cralawlibrary

¹⁸ςrνl1 De Guzman v. People, 459 Phil. 576, 580 (2003), citing People V. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 255.