Case Digest

Case Digest
People of the Philippines vs Aquino et al

G.R. No. 203435, April 11, 2018
Statement of the Facts:
In the case at bar, two criminal informations were filed against the accused on August 15,
2001 charging them of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder for the death of Jackie
Caguioa and for the wounds sustained by Ernesto Caguioa.
The prosecution alleged that on May 15, 2001 at around 10:30 in the morning, Inyong
Narvante approached Ernesto Caguioa and asked the latter for some fish as he was in a drinking
spree with his friends. Ernesto, however, refused and teased Inyong for voting for a certain
Domalante. An infuriated Inyong shouted, "vulva of your mother," and threatened that
something would happen to Ernesto.
Later in the morning, while Ernesto was having a talk with Jackie, his son, Rick De
Guzman, and Orlando Ferrer and waiting for a boat to be used for the transportation of their
catch to Dagupan, the group of people near them composing of Ernesto's twin sons, Edwin and
Edward, together with Dicto de Guzman and Bonifacio Doria were attacked by stones threw to
them by the group of Mardy, Mario, Juanito, Inyong, Recto Aquino (Recto), Romy Fernandez
(Romy), Felix Saplan (Felix), and Bonifacio Caguioa (Bonifacio). Distressed with what
happened, Edwin told to his elder brother Jackie and to his father Ernesto the incident.
Afterwards, Jackie went to where the accused were having a drinking session to ask them
why they attacked his brothers. Ernesto followed him. Instead of answering, the accused laughed
at him. All of a sudden, Raul Bautista, Aquilino Melendez, and Juanito grabbed and restrained
Jackie who was then stabbed by Mardy and Recto. Ernesto attempted to help his son, but Mario
held him by the neck while Felix, Inyong, Romy, and Bonifacio grabbed his left leg. In that
position, Ernesto was stabbed by Mardy and Recto, hitting him in the left arm, left stomach, and
left thigh. As a result, Ernesto and Jackie were brought to the hospital but the latter was
pronounced dead on arrival.
On the other hand, the accused interposed the defense of denial and alibi to refute the
prosecution’s allegations against them. They contended that Ernesto and Jackie were the ones
who initiated aggression by using an iron pipe to hit them, and that, according to them they
fought back by stabbing them only as a matter of self-preservation.
Ruling of the RTC:
The lower court ruled that Mardy, Mario, and Juanito are guilty of murder and frustrated
murder due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Hence,
the RTC ordered each accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil
indemnity amounting to 50,000 pesos, actual damages of 70,000 pesos, 40,000 pesos as attys.
Fees and 100,00 pesos as moral damages, all for the crime of murder. As to the charge of
frustrated murder, RTC rendered the penalty of prision correctional, actual damages of 15,000
pesos and attys fees of 15,000 pesos.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA upheld the conviction of the accused of the charges against them ratiocinating
that the use of a deadly weapon and the number of wounds inflicted demonstrated a deliberate
and determined assault with intent to kill. It farther held that a finding of abuse of superior
strength was not negated by the fact that some of the accused suffered injuries. The appellate
court declared that the prosecution sufficiently proved the presence of conspiracy considering
that the victims were simultaneously restrained and stabbed by the accused. However, the CA
held that actual damages should be reduced to P20,000.00 because the receipts submitted by the
prosecution showed that the heirs of Jackie incurred only P20,000.00 as funeral expenses and not
P70,000.
Statement of the Issues:
A. Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused committed the crime of murder?
B. Whether or not the charge of Frustrated Murder is proper?
C. Whether or not the accused are guilty of attempted Homicide?
D. What is the proper imposable penalty and amount of damages for the crimes committed?
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
A. As to the issue of conviction beyond reasonable doubt

The Honorable Court held that the accused are liable only for the crime of Homicide and
not Murder. According to the court, the elements of murder are: 1) That a person was killed; 2)
That the accused killed him; 3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Art. 248; and 4) That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Under article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, one of the qualifying circumstances for the killing
to be considered as murder is abuse of superior strength.
In the case at bar, the court states that the first, second and fourth elements of the crime of
murder are undisputed but the third one is not present. Abuse of superior strength is present
whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is
plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and purposely selected or taken advantage
of to facilitate the commission of the crime. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance
depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.
The court noted that the prosecution failed to present competent evidence showing a
relative disparity in age, size, and strength, or force, except for the showing that two assailants
stabbed the victim while three others restrained him. Moreover, the mere fact that there were
several assailants does not ipso facto indicate nor is it indicative of an abuse of superior strength
Additionally, the court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows
that the encounter between the victims and the accused was not premeditated considering the
circumstance it was Jackie and Ernesto who went to the area of the accused drinking spree.
There was no conscious and deliberate intent to take advantage of the superiority of their
strength as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused purposely resorted to holding Jackie
by the arms so that two of them would be free to stab him. Hence, the accused can be held liable
only of the crime of Homicide.
B. As to whether the charge of frustrated murder is proper

The court briefly but made a definitive pronouncement that the charge of frustrated
murder is not proper. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, all qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be alleged in the information. Here, the prosecution failed to allege abuse of
superior strength as a qualifying circumstance in the information for frustrated murder. What has
been alleged is evident premeditation but the prosecution did not even bother to adduce evidence
to prove the same. Hence, the proper charge should only be homicide.
C. As to whether the charge of attempted homicide is proper

The court ruled that the accused are liable only for the crime of attempted homicide. The
elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by
his use of a deadly weapon in the assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but
did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance
for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present. If the victim
sustained fatal wound, then the crime would be at its frustrated stage otherwise it is only
attempted stage.
Here, the prosecution failed to prove that the wounds inflicted against Ernesto were fatal.
Dr. Carlito V. Arenas, who attended to Ernesto, testified that the possibility of death from such
wounds is far-off. Dr. Arenas testified during the court hearing that it is possible for Ernesto to
survive even without medical treatment because the stab wounds inflicted against the victim
were on his left thoraco, thenar left hand and left tigh, which according to him in his professional
capacity is no capable of bringing Ernesto to death since no vital organs were penetrated.
Hence, absent any showing that Ernesto would have died had it not been for the timely
medical assistance, the court finds the accused guilty of homicide in its attempted stage only.
D . As to the Proper Penalty

The court held that the accused shall be meted the penalty of reclusion temporal for the
crime of homicide pursuant to Article 249 of the RPC. Moreover, since there is absent any
aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. On the other hand,
Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the imposable penalty for an attempted crime
shall be lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. Two (2)
degrees lower of reclusion temporal is prision correccional. Hence, the accused shall serve the
penalty of prision correctional.
As regards the amount of damages in the crime of homicide, accused-appellants are
ordered to pay the heirs of Jackie Caguioa P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.36 Further, as declared by the Court in People v.
Villanueva,37 when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than
P25,000.00, as in this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of
actual damages of a lesser amount.38
For the crime of attempted homicide, accused-appellants are ordered to pay Ernesto Caguioa
P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages. Considering that abuse of
superior strength was duly proved even though not alleged in the information, accused-appellants
are further ordered to pay Ernesto Caguioa P20,000.00 as exemplary damages

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

People of the Philippines vs Aquino et al

Statement of the Facts:

Statement of the Issues:

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

A. As to the issue of conviction beyond reasonable doubt

B. As to whether the charge of frustrated murder is proper

C. As to whether the charge of attempted homicide is proper

D . As to the Proper Penalty

You might also like