Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 178276 : December 10, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LEO ACTUB CANETE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT; FELECITO AMANDORON [AT LARGE! AND AMIR ACUB [AT LARGE], ACCUSED :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 December 2008:

G.R. No. 178276 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LEO ACTUB CANETE, accused-appellant; FELECITO AMANDORON [AT LARGE} AND AMIR ACUB [AT LARGE], accused)

For the death, of Consorcia Lumagbas (Consorcia), appellant Leo Actub Ca�ete (Leo), together with Avelino Amandoron (Avelino), Felecito Amandoron (Felecito). and Amir Acub (Amir) were charged with the crime of Murder in the Second Amended Information as follows:

That on April 26,  1999, at 7:30 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at Macanhan. Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, and armed with a knife and an ice pick which they were then conveniently provided, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab repeatedly one Sister Consorcia Lumagbas, with the use of said weapons, hitting her neck and other parts of her body several times, thereby inflicting on her serious wounds, resulting to the victim's untimely death.

That the crime was committed, with the aid of armed men, with insult or disregard of the respect due to the offended party' on account of her rank, age or sex or that it is committed in the dwelling of the offended party. That the crime was committed at nighttime and such circumstance has facilitated to the commission of the offense. Furthermore, the crime was committed in consideration of a reward or promise and after an unlawful entry and accused took advantage of their superior strength.

Contrary to and in violation to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code as ameuded.^[1]

Leo and Avelino pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. The other two accused were at large. In the course of the trial, Avelino filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted in its Order dated 18 March 2002. As a consequence, the case against Avelino was ordered dismissed on the ground of "reasonable doubt.'

The evidence for the prosecution showed that Consorcia, 68 years old and a former nun, put up the store B & CM Minimart at Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City.  She hired Felipa Ita (Felipa) to help her manage her business. In 1994, Consorcia started living in Macanhan, Cagayan de Oro City, leaving Felipa a [one to manage the store. Sometime in 1993, Consorcia learned that Felipa was romantically involved with Avelino, a married man. She advised Felipa to break up vvith Avelino but her advice fell on deaf ears. Later, Consorcia learned that Avelino was sleeping at the store and was managing (he store together with Felipa. Consorcia demanded for an inventory which led her to file a complaint against Avelino before the Barangay Lupon. During their confrontation, Avelino promised to stay away from the store and to pay his accounts. He reneged on his promise. The rift intensified that Consorcia's kin even warned her of a threat on her life.

On 26 April 1999, at around 7:30 in the evening, Consorcia was at her house which had an adjoining store. She was watching television at her living room (sala) when Leo, Felecito and another unidentified person arrived. They bought three bottles of "Red Horse" beer and cigarettes. Consorcia's aide, Misrahem Lumahang (Misrahem), attended to them. While Leo handed the payment to Misrahem, he suddenly bumped her and covered her mouth with a towel. Felecito and his companion entered the sala. strangled Consorcia and tied her hands. Leo left Misrahem and rushed to Consorcia, pomaded her head on the floor several times. Unsatisfied, Leo stabbed her neck with a knife. Leo then asked Misrahem where Consorcia kept her money. Misrahem pointed to the place, and Leo took as much money as he could and placed the money inside his pocket. Thereafter, he retrieved the knife which was still embedded in Consorcia's neck. Since he could not escape through the door as there were already many people waiting for linn outside, Leo made a hole on the ceiling of the victim's room and went up to the rooftop of the DAK. building. A police officer ordered Leo to come down but the latter hesitated, fearing the crowd outside the building who were already armed with wooden bats, iron bars and nightsticks. Leo finally went down. When frisked, a bloodstained knife was found in his pocket.

At the police station, Leo, assisted by counsel, admitted that he was one of the assailants but declared, that the masterminds in the killing were Avelino and his live-in partner Felipa. He also implicated Felecito and Amir as his companions in killing the victim.

The post-mortem examination on the body of the victim revealed hematoma, which could, have been caused by pounding or slamming of the head, against the floor, and several stab wounds and slash wound on the neck. The cause of death was ".hemorrhage, severe, secondary to multiple stab wounds and slash wound of the neck."

Olivia Lumagbas Marquez, Consorcia's niece, testified that they incurred expenses for the funeral and other related expenses in the amount of P50,576.70, which were supported by receipts.

After trial, the court rendered judgment on 6 March 2003 finding appellant Leo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified by evident premeditation, with treachery which was treated as a generic aggravating circumstance which absorbed the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength, and taking into consideration the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and disregard of sex and age due the offended party, and without any mitigating circumstance. He was sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death by-lethal injection. He was further ordered to pay the heirs of Consorcia P75,000 as civil indemnity; P50,576.70 as reimbursement of the amount spent for the burial, wake and other related expenses by reason of the victim's death, and P50,000 as moral damages. The case against Felecito and Amir, who were still at large, was archived.

On automatic review, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court's judgment with modification, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of the death penalty pursuant to Section 2(a) of Republic Act No. 9346.

We agree with the findings of the CA and the same are in accord with law and evidence. The CA ruled that Leo's extrajudicial confession, which was given voluntarily and intelligently, was admissible as it did not violate any constitutional provision. Leo's conviction was not solely based on his extrajudicial confession. Other circumstances indicate his direct participation in the crime. As correctly found by the CA, when Leo was apprehended, he was frisked and the police officers found the bloodied knife in his pocket. His bloodied shirt which he removed at the comfort room before he went up the roof was also found. Consorcia's aide, Misrahem, was an eyewitness to the gruesome incident and positively identified him as one of the perpetrators. The CA opined that while Misrahem might have been gagged to keep her from screaming, she was not blindfolded to prevent her from watching. She remembered how Leo pounded Consorcia's head on the floor and saw how Leo stabbed the victim several times. The manner by which she described the details of the crime was forthright, spontaneous and unwavering.

The CA further ruled that evident premeditation and treachery attended the commission of the crime. It also took into consideration the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and disregard of sex and age. Evidence showed that the plan to kill the victim, a 68-year old woman, was already hatched and decided as early as 24 April 1999 while the assailants were on a drinking spree. Sufficient time elapsed between the determination to commit the crime and the actual execution and consummation of the crime which happened on 26 April 1999.  When they arrived at the victim's house, Leo was already, armed with a knife.

In appreciating the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of treachery, the CA found that the assailants pretended to be customers in the store of the victim. The manner by which the crime was executed was intended to ensure success. Leo covered Misrahem's mouth with cloth to prevent her from alerting Consorcia or anyone who may frustrate their plan. The two assailants rushed to Consorcia, who was watching television, covered her mouth and tied her hands.  After immobilizing Consorcia, Leo rushed towards her and pounded her head on the floor and repeatedly stabbed her on the neck. Indeed, the assailants employed means and methods to ensure the consummation of the crime of murder.

However, we agree with appellant Leo that nighttime should not be appreciated in this case. The store where the assailants drank was well-lighted. It cannot be said that they took advantage of nighttime in order to afford impunity. The assailants switched off the lights only after stabbing Consorcia- Nighttime was not used to facilitate the commission of the crime.

Nonetheless, we award exemplary damages of P25,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances as discussed above.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision dated 14 February 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00414-MIN convicting appellant Leo Actub Ca�ete of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the MODIFICATION that, aside from civil indemnity of P75,000; actual damages of P50,576.70, and moral damages of P50,000, appellant is further ordered to pay exemplary damages of P25,000, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.

The Court further resolves to NOTE the records of this case forwarded by the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.