SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 115247-48. December 1, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GASPAR S. SINDA, ROMEO S. SINDA and ERNESTO S. SINDA, Accused-Appellants.

D E C I S I O N

BUENA, J.:

For the death of Felix and Rogelio Salacut, herein appellants brothers Gaspar, Romeo and Ernesto all surnamed Sinda, were tried before, and convicted by, the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, of murder, and were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and tointly and severally indemnify the respective heirs of the victims in the amount of P50,000.00. chanrobles virtual law library

The two informations filed against the appellants read: chanrobles virtual law library

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11074: chanrobles virtual law library

That on or about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of September 16, 1993, at brgy. Tambuhangin, Amlan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and strike Felix Salacut with huge stones, and later stab said victim with a sharp-bladed instrument, thereby causing various injuries on the body of said victim, which injuries caused the instantaneous death of said victim, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Felix Salacut." chanrobles virtual law library

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11075: chanrobles virtual law library

"That on or about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of September 16, 1993, at barangay Tambuhangin, Amlan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, and strike Rogelio Salacut with huge stones, and later stab said victim with a sharp-bladed instrument, thereby causing various injuries on the body of said victim, which injuries caused the instantaneous death of said victim, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Rogelio Salacut." chanrobles virtual law library

On the basis of these allegations, the prosecution sought to establish that at around 7 o'clock in the evening of September 16, 1993, the three (3) appellants, together with the two (2) victims Felix and Rogelio Salacut, Benceslao Silorio, and Diony Riasol, were having a drinking binge of "guhang" (a local wine) at the latter's store in Tambuhangin, Amlan, Negros Oriental. About an hour later, the group, with the exception of Eulogio Silorio and Diony Riaso, proceeded to the house of the appellants' parents where they continued imbibing 1 1/2 gallons more of "guhang" at the yard. chanrobles virtual law library

Felix Salacut then announced his intention of going home but not before repeatedly asking appellant Gaspar where his bolo was. Apparently irked, appellant Gaspar punched Felix on the right side of his body causing the latter to fall flat on his back. The three (3) appellants then threw stones at the fallen Felix hitting him on the face and on different parts of his body. chanrobles virtual law library

They then turned their ire on Rogelio Salacut, who was lying down on the ground near the kitchen, by stoning him like what they did to Felix. Rogelio's pleas for the assault to stop fell on deaf ears, as the three (3) appellants continued pelting him with stones which found their mark on different parts of his body. The incident was witnessed by one of the drinkers, Benceslao Silorio, who, out of fear, hurriedly left for home. He returned to the crime scene the following morning where he saw the lifeless bodies of Felix and Rogelio Salacut on the ground bathed in blood.[1 chanrobles virtual law library

The autopsy report of Dr. Anita Ygonia on the cadavers of Felix and Rogelio Salacut revealed the following: chanrobles virtual law library

"Felix Salacut chanrobles virtual law library

"The body is in a state of rigor mortis after 10 1/2 hours after death, and is lying on its back with face directed to the left side, with blood coming out from the nostrils, ears, and mouth and the lower extremities are flexed. chanrobles virtual law library

1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 0,5 cm along the right parietal region with depressed fracture of the same; chanrobles virtual law library

2. Face markedly deformed due to a comminuted fracture of the same; chanrobles virtual law library

3. Stab wound 4 cm x 1cm x 11 cm depth at the base of the right side of the neck directed downwards toward the right side; chanrobles virtual law library

4. Incised wound at the following areas: chanrobles virtual law library

a) right side of neck 2 cm superficial 1 cm above wound no. 3 chanrobles virtual law library

b) right forearm 1 1/2 cm, superficial dorsal portion, middle third. chanrobles virtual law library

Cause of Deathchanrobles virtual law library

Shock secondary to hemorrhage due to fracture of the face and stab wound at the base of right side of the neck."² chanrobles virtual law library

"Rogelio Salacut: chanrobles virtual law library

"The body is in a state of rigor mortis after 10 hours after death. The body is lying on its left side in a flexed position, with both upper and lower extremities flexed. chanrobles virtual law library

1. Multiple lacerated wound at the following parts of the body: chanrobles virtual law library

a) right parietal region 3 cm x 1 cm x 0,5 cm with depressed fracture of the same chanrobles virtual law library

b) right temporal region 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.3 cm; chanrobles virtual law library

c) left parietal region 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm; chanrobles virtual law library

d) left temporal region 1 1/2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm; chanrobles virtual law library

e) left side of forehead 5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm vertical position just above the left eyebrow, with depressed fracture of the same; chanrobles virtual law library

2. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 1/2 cm x 4 cm depth at the base of the head, right side; chanrobles virtual law library

3. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 10 cm at the left inframandibular area; chanrobles virtual law library

4. Multiple abrasions with contusion at the following parts of the body: chanrobles virtual law library

a) right scapular region, at the upper half 2 cm x 2.5 cm; chanrobles virtual law library

b) right side of knee 3 cm x 3 cm; chanrobles virtual law library

c) left lumbar area 3 cm x 2 cm, 5 cm above the iliac bone; chanrobles virtual law library

d) left elbow region; chanrobles virtual law library

e) lateral side of chest 2 cm below the right axillary region. chanrobles virtual law library

Cause of Death:chanrobles virtual law library

Shock secondary to hemorrhage due to multiple lacerated wounds of the head with fractured portion of skull and incised wound at the left inframandibular area, and base of head at right side."[3 chanrobles virtual law library

The three (3) appellants do not deny that they and the victims were having a drinking session at their parent's house on the night in question. They nonetheless tell a story of self-defense. chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant Gaspar admitted killing the victims, but in self-defense. He claimed that after Felix Salacut found his bolo which he was looking for, Rogelio remarked: "You hack him." At that instance, Felix faced appellant Gaspar with a raised bolo and advanced towards him, poised to strike him with the bolo. Appellant Gaspar moved back, picked up a stone and threw it at Felix, hitting the latter on the right side of his forehead. Felix fell to the ground, losing hold of his bolo. Appellant Gaspar then picked the bolo up and thrust it on the right side of Felix's neck. Meanwhile, Rogelio Salacut approached appellant Gaspar, poised to beat the latter with a chair. Upon seeing this, appellant Romeo threw a stone at Rogelio hitting the latter on the face. Rogelio fell to the ground. Appellant Gaspar then slashed the latters neck with the same bolo he was holding. chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant Romeo narrated that after drinking in the place of Diony Riasol, he and his brother appellant Gaspar went to their mother's house where they resumed drinking. Ten minutes later, Felix, Rogelio and Benceslao arrived andined them. Felix signified his intention to leave and asked for his bolo from appellant Gaspar who denied having it. Failing to find the bolo, appellant Gaspar went upstairs to look for a bigger lamp to illuminate the premises. The bolo was found under the table where Felix picked it up. At this point, Rogelio remarked: "You hack him." So, Felix lunged at appellant Gaspar but the latter picked up a stone and threw it at Felix, hitting the latter on the forehead. Felix fell to the ground, losing hold of the bolo. Appellant Gaspar took the bolo and slashed Felix's neck. Upon seeing this, Rogelio got the seat of a bench and poised to strike Romeo who moved back and picked up a stone. He threw the stone at Rogelio hitting the latter on the right cheek. Rogelio fell to the ground. Thereupon, appellant Gaspar slashed the neck of Rogelio with the bolo despite Rogelio's plea. Appellant Romeo went upstairs to comfort his mother who was crying. chanrobles virtual law library

For his part, appellant Ernesto declared that after delivering half cavan of corn grains to his mother at about 6 o'clock in the evening of September 16, 1993, he went to sleep. He was awakened by his mother at about 10 o'clock telling him that there was an ongoing quarrel downstairs among appellant Gaspar and Romeo, Felix and Rogelio. So, appellant Ernesto took his mother out of the house and went to the safety of the house of his uncle Gaudioso Sinda. He stayed there until the following morning. chanrobles virtual law library

The trial court did not believe appellants' exculpatory story and, instead, gave full faith and credence to the prosecution's version which led to their conviction. chanrobles virtual law library

Pleading for their acquittal, accused-appellants now come to this Court arguing that the court a quo erred: chanrobles virtual law library

I. in concluding that there was conspiracy on the part of the accused-appellants anent the incident in question. chanrobles virtual law library

II. in not giving due weight and credence to the evidence adduced by the accused-appellant Ernesto Sinda. chanrobles virtual law library

III. in convicting the accused-appellants guilty of murder and not homicide. chanrobles virtual law library

On the first assigned error, they argue that the assailed incident arose out of a simple misunderstanding between Felix and appellant Gaspar. It was totally unexpected and not a premeditated one. Prior to the incident, there was no proof that appellants Gaspar and Romeo had agreed to kill the victims. It was the victims themselves who went to the house of the appellants and engaged them in a drinking spree. There was nothing to indicate that appellants had an axe to grind against the victims as to embolden them to carry out their common objective, in particular, the very crucial stage wherein appellants agreed on the manner by which their intended victims would be waylaid. Neither was it proven that an agreement was hatched among appellants anent the place where their plan to assault victims would be carried out, the exact time of committing the same and their respective goals. chanrobles virtual law library

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or implied, to commit the felony and forthwith, to actually pursue it.⁴ Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused, indubitably revealing their unity of purpose, intent and sentiment in committing the crime.⁵ Thus, it is not required that there was an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence, it is sufficient that the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense and that they had the same purpose or common design, and that they were united in its execution.⁶ chanrobles virtual law library

We have carefully reviewed the record of the case and agree with the trial court's ruling that appellants acted in conspiracy. While there is no evidence of a previous agreement between the appellants to kill the victims, their simultaneous acts in stoning the victims indubitably show unity of purpose, and intent to harm the victims. These circumstances were positively established by the testimony of the prosecution witness Benceslao Silorio. Thus, chanrobles virtual law library

"Q Tell us how this quarrel started? chanrobles virtual law library

A Felix looked for his bolo because he wanted to go home. chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you say "Felix" you are referring to Felix Salacut, one of your companions? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q At this moment when Felix Salacut asked for his bolo because he wants to go home, where was Rogelio Salacut? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was sleeping. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where was Rogelio Salacut sleeping? chanrobles virtual law library

A On the ground. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You said that Felix Salacut was looking for his bolo, from whom did he inquire about his bolo? chanrobles virtual law library

A From Gaspar because Gaspar inserted the bolo at his back. chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you say "Gaspar", you are referring again to Gaspar Sinda? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You mean that Gaspar inserted the bolo of Felix Salacut at the back or the waist portion of his pants? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, at the back. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And what happened after Felix Salacut inquired about his bolo from Gaspar Sinda? chanrobles virtual law library

A In the course of their conversation Felix was boxed by Gaspar. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was Felix hit? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where was Felix Salacut hit? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was hit at his side. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Which side? chanrobles virtual law library

A (Witness pointing to his right side). chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened to Felix upon being hit by Gaspar? chanrobles virtual law library

A He fell down. chanrobles virtual law library

Q On the ground? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And what happened right after Felix Salacut fell down on the ground? chanrobles virtual law library

A When Felix Salacut fell down Gaspar Sinda, Romeo Sinda and Ernesto Sinda threw stones at him. chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you say Gaspar Sinda, Romeo Sinda and Ernesto Sinda you are referring again to the accused in this case? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q How big were the stones thrown by these 3 accused towards Felix Salacut who was on the ground? chanrobles virtual law library

A Some are as big as my fists, some are as big as both of my fists combined. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was Felix Salacut hit? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where was Felix Salacut hit? chanrobles virtual law library

A Here (witness pointing to the right side of his face, his temple). chanrobles virtual law library

Q How many times was Felix Salacut hit by the stones thrown by the 3 accused, if you can estimate? chanrobles virtual law library

A I did not notice but there were plenty of stones thrown. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And then in the course of the stoning of felix Salacut by the 3 accused, what transpired, what also happened? chanrobles virtual law library

A They turned to Rogelio Salacut who was sleeping near the kitchen and threw stones at him. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was Rogelio Salacut able to wake up in the course of the stoning of Felix Salacut? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, he stood up and he advised but they stoned him. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Whom did Rogelio Salacut give advice? chanrobles virtual law library

A The people who were quarrelling. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You are referring to the 3 Sindas and Felix Salacut? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, chanrobles virtual law library

Q You said he was stoned after he gave an advice, was Rogelio hit? chanrobles virtual law library

A The first one who threw stones was Gaspar Sinda, followed by Romeo Sinda and Ernesto Sinda.⁷ chanrobles virtual law library

It is clear from the foregoing testimony that at the time of the commission of the crime, they had the same purpose and were united in its execution. By simultaneously throwing stones at the victims, they had a common design to inflict harm on both victims. Thus, we agree with the court a quo's ruling, viz:chanrobles virtual law library

"Dr. Ygonia found on Felix Salacut five (5) injuries (Exhs. C-2-a, C-2-b, C-2-c, C-2-d and C-2-e) Rogelio Salacut sustained twelve (12) injuries (Exhs. D-2-a, D-2-b, D-2-c, D-2-d, D-2-e, D-2-f, D-2-g, D-2-h, D-3-a, D-3-b, D-3-c and D-3-e). And this means that said injuries were inflicted, not by only one but by several persons. This, therefore, proves the veracity of the testimony of Prosecution witness Benceslao Silorio that the three accused in a concerted action, pelted Felix Salacut and Rogelio Salacut with stones inflicting thereby the injuries found by Dra. Ygonia. The acts done by each and all of the three accused were moved by the same purpose-that is, to kill Felix Salacut and Rogelio Salacut. And the concerted action of all the three accused in the assault against the two victims in this case made them co-principals by direct participation and has established conspiracy among them. x x x"⁸ (Underscoring supplied) chanrobles virtual law library

Appellants likewise argue that the crime committed was only homicide and not murder because it was not attended with aggravating circumstances. They claim there was no treachery because it was not established that appellants had deliberately and consciously adopted the means, method or manner of assaulting their victims- the incident having been committed at the spur of the moment. chanrobles virtual law library

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods of forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[9 chanrobles virtual law library

The appellants, in waylaying the victims, obviously employed a mode of attack which was deliberately designed to insure the death of their victims without any risk they could have made against them. Felix and Rogelio were both unarmed at the time the appellants pelted the two with stones. It must be stressed that when the victims fell on the ground after the appellants threw stones at them, there was no danger on the part of the appellants of any attack from the victims. The victims were not in a position to defend themselves at the time appellant Gaspar hacked them on their necks. In other words, the method employed by the accused insured his safety from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the victims.¹⁰ chanrobles virtual law library

Appellants further claim that the killing was sudden and purely accidental, thus, there was no treachery. chanrobles virtual law library

We do not agree. chanrobles virtual law library

The act of appellant Gaspar in hacking the victims was deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the death of the victims. This can be inferred from appellant Gaspar's own testimony, to wit: chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

Q After you threw stone on the forehead of Felix, what happened to him? chanrobles virtual law library

A He fell down. chanrobles virtual law library

Q What was his position when he fell down? chanrobles virtual law library

A He fell down face up with his 2 arms spread out. chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened to the bolo when he fell to the ground? chanrobles virtual law library

A The bolo also fell. chanrobles virtual law library

Q How far from him did the bolo fall? chanrobles virtual law library

A About meter. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was it inside the scabbard or outside? chanrobles virtual law library

A It was already outside the scabbard. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was he unconscious or still conscious? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was still conscious. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did he talk to you while he was lying down on the ground? chanrobles virtual law library

A No more. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was he moving? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was jerking. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you see blood on his face? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did he attempt to stand up? chanrobles virtual law library

A No more. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And then what did you do, you picked up the bolo? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And you stabbed him on the neck as you said? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Why did you stab him on the neck? chanrobles virtual law library

A Because I forgot myself. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You intended to kill him? chanrobles virtual law library

A No. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Then why did you stab him on the neck? chanrobles virtual law library

A Because he was very angry about the bolo and he was suspecting me that I kept his bolo. chanrobles virtual law library

Q His anger was because he suspected you that you kept the bolo? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q But at the moment you stabbed him, he was no longer attacking you? chanrobles virtual law library

A No more because the bolo had already fallen after I threw stone at him. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And he could not even fight you anymore because according to you he was jerking? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And yet you stabbed him on the neck? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Because you wanted to kill him? chanrobles virtual law library

A I finished him because he was already wounded."[11 (Underscoring supplied) chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant Gaspar gave the same explanation when he was asked why he stabbed Rogelio Salacut. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You mean you wanted to kill him? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, I wanted to finish him in order for them not to retaliate because my mother is sick. chanrobles virtual law library

Q But at the moment you slashed his neck, he could not fight you anymore? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. chanrobles virtual law library

Q He had no more weapon? chanrobles virtual law library

A None. chanrobles virtual law library

Q the bolo was in your hand already? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes.¹² (Underscoring supplied) chanrobles virtual law library

There is no doubt that appellant Gaspar consciously adopted such mode to facilitate the perpetration of the killing of the victims without risk to himself. chanrobles virtual law library

Moreover, the wounds sustained by the victims indisputably show treachery. Felix Salacut sustained a fracture in the parietal area of the head and a comminuted fracture on the face. As testified to by Dr. Anita Ygoa, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, these injuries are fatal. chanrobles virtual law library

"FISCAL: chanrobles virtual law library

Q This appears to be a depressed fracture, what do you mean by depressed fracture? chanrobles virtual law library

A Depressed fracture is, there is a solution of the continuity of the bone along the parietal area, there is a break. chanrobles virtual law library

Q What are the possible consequences of this kind of injury? chanrobles virtual law library

A It could injure the brain. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And what could be the resultant effect if the brain is injured? chanrobles virtual law library

A It could cause death.chanrobles virtual law library

Q So this is a fatal injury? chanrobles virtual law library

A It is a fatal injury.

[1 TSN, November 23, 1993, pp. 18-23.

[2 Record, p. 10.

[3 Records, p. 12.

[4 See Article 8, Revised Penal Code; People v. Quitlong, 292 SCRA 360, 378 [1998].

[5 People v. Albao, 287 SCRA 129 [1998]; People v. Leangsiri, 252 SCRA 213 [1996]; People v. Salison, Jr., 253 SCRA 758 [1996]; People v. Sumampong, 290 SCRA 471 [1998].

[6 People v. Hubilla, Jr., 252 SCRA 471 [1996]; People v. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 [1998].

[7 TSN, November 23, 1993, pp. 20-22.

[8 RTC Decision, pp. 15 - 16.

[9 Article 14,par. 16, Revised Penal Code; People v. Lacao, Sr., 201 SCRA 317, 330 [1991]; People v. Velaga, Jr. 199 SCRA 518, 523 [1991]; People v. Aguilar, 292 SCRA 349, 357 [1998]; People v. Molina, 292 SCRA 742, 775 [1998].

[10 People v. Toribio, 198 SCRA 529, 540 [1991].

[11 TSN, March 7, 1994, pp. 14-15.

[12 Ibid. , p. 15.

[13 TSN, November 23, 1993, pp. 6-7.

[14 TSN, November 23, 1993, pp. 6-7.

[15 TSN, March 7, 1994, p. 15.

[16 People v. Llamera, 51 SCRA 48, 60 [1973]; People v. Luna, 58 SCRA 198, 209 [1974].

[17 People v. Dayug and Bannaisan, 49 Phil. 423, 427 [1926].

[18 People v. Obello, 284 SCRA 79, 88-89 [1998]; People v. Magpantay, 284 SCRA 97, 101 [1998].