People Vs Mejia
People Vs Mejia
People Vs Mejia
July 7, 1997]
DECISION
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Held to account for the above acts were Gregorio Mejia, Edwin
Benito, Pedro Paraan, Joseph Fabito, Romulo Calimquim, one alias
Dennis, Alex Mamaril, one alias Mondragon, and another
unidentified person. Mejia and Benito were taken into police custody
a few hours after the incident; Paraan, the following day; and
Fabito, five days after. Calimquim was found dead three days after
the incident in question, while the others have remained at large.
Three separate criminal complaints for murder,1 frustrated
murder,2 and violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Anti Carnapping Act of
1992, as amended)3 were filed against them with the Municipal Trial
Court of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan.
I
THE CASES IN THE LARON COURT
The nine passengers told Landingin that they were bound for
Pangasinan Village Inn (PVI) in Bued, Calasiao. But when they
reached PVI, one of them said that his companions did not know
where they were going, and informed Landingin that he would take
care of the fare upon reaching Nansangaan, Sta. Barbara,
Pangasinan. Upon reaching Nansangaan, one of the nine passengers
asked Landingin to drive a little farther. Later, Mejia asked Catugas
whether he was Landingins companion; Catugas answered in the
affirmative. Mejia then announced: [T]his is a hold-up; while Benito
said: [N]obody will be able to be saved his life [sic]. Another
companion of Mejia said: Proceed. All of the nine drew their daggers
and stabbed Landingin and Catugas.11 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the other hand, Catugas, who was pushed out of the jeepney
and landed on the road, was brought by some people to the Villaflor
Memorial Hospital.14 Dr. Roberto Valenzuela performed on Catugas
exploratory laparatomy debridement and found three multi-
lacerations in the right upper extremities and several others on the
left upper extremities which could have been caused by bladed
instruments.15 Catugas survived and was confined for seven days.
He spent more than P50,000 for his hospitalization and medical
expenses. The hospital billed him in the amount of P44,667.25.16 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sometime after Catugas was discharged from the hospital and was
already driving a tricycle, the parents of the accused met with him
and informed him that the accused told them that they (the
accused) did not commit any wrong. Catugas answered that he had
suffered several wounds and spent much for his hospitalization and
that since the accused were the ones apprehended, he would just
tell a lie so he could recover the amounts he spent. Catugas then
asked P20,000 from each of the accused, or a total of P80,000, and
repeated this demand five to six times.34 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The trial court gave full credit to the version of the prosecution and
relied heavily on the identification of the accused by Catugas, the
absence of ulterior motive on the part of the latter, and the offer of
the parents of the accused to compromise the cases.
II
2. They (accused) posited that for fear of their lives they did not do
anything except to passively stay at the back seat of the jeepney
motionless from the place of stabbing incident in Sta. Barbara,
Pangasinan up to the mountains in Sual, Pangasinan.
III
(2) Catugas told Conrado Benito and Felicidad Fabito that their
children did not commit any wrong, but Catugas vacillated and
testified falsely against accused-appellants when they were not able
to produce the amount of P20,000.00 each as earlier demanded
from them. Catugas denial of their testimony is self-serving and
cannot overcome the positive testimony of Conrado and Felicidad.
(4) On the assumption that they are guilty they could only be liable
for homicide and frustrated homicide, since treachery was not
established.
(2) The entry in the Sual Police Station police blotter that Benito
and Mejia were suspected of having carnapped the passenger
jeepney does not bind them, for it was made by a police officer and
was contrary to what they had reported.
(3) There is no basis for the conclusion that Paraan and Fabito had
escaped.
(4) The trial court should not have relied on the testimony of
Catugas whose identification of the appellants was based only on
the pictures and on the information of the policemen. It was
impossible for Catugas to narrate in detail the participation of each
accused, considering that the light in the jeepney was dim and his
principal attention was concentrated on defending himself.
(5) Appellants reporting of the incident disproved their membership
in the group of Calimquim. If they were members, their natural
course would have been to hide from the authorities. Their
voluntary submission to the police immediately after the incident
should have been given credence as part of the res gestae.
The OSG also maintains that treachery was duly proved and, hence,
the trial court was correct in convicting the appellants of murder for
the death of Teofilo Landingin and frustrated murder for stabbing
Virgilio Catugas. Their conviction for violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Act is also proper, since their main purpose was to get
the jeepney and they killed Landingin in order that they could get it.
They presented no evidence to prove that they ran away with the
jeepney for any lawful purpose.
In their Consolidated Reply Brief, the appellants try to show that the
identification made by the prosecution witness Catugas cannot be
denominated as clear, positive, and convincing; for, while it may be
true that he could have taken glimpse or glance at the faces of all
the accused-appellants, this fact alone is not adequate and fell short
of the required test of positive identification. They strongly suggest
that Catugas had ill-motive to testify falsely against them in that he
was not paid the P80,000 he demanded.
IV
THE CRIMES COMMITTED AND THE ISSUE OF CULPABILITY OF
APPELLANTS
In the original Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539, the last clause read as
follows:
Three amendments have thus been made, viz: (1) the change of
the penalty of life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, (2) the
inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the phrase in the
commission of the carnapping to in the course of the commission of
the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. The latter makes clear
the intention of the law to make the offense a special complex
crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 294
of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons. As such, the killing (or the rape) merely
qualifies the crime of carnapping which for lack of specific
nomenclature may be known as qualified carnapping or carnapping
in an aggravated form. In short, considering the phraseology of the
amended Section 14,51 the carnapping and the killing (or the rape)
may be considered as a single or indivisible crime or a special
complex crime which, however, is not covered by Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code.
But do the words "IS KILLED" in the last clause of Section 14 of R.A.
No. 6539, as amended, include the crime of frustrated murder or
homicide? Put a little differently, does murder or homicide in its
frustrated stage also qualify carnapping if it is committed in the
course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof? The answer must be in the negative in light of the use in
said Section 14 of the words IS KILLED. The unmistakable import
thereof is that it refers only to the consummated felony of either
murder or homicide.
The theory of the appellants is that they were not members of the
group of Romulo Calimquim. The prosecution has no proof to prove
otherwise; but the LARON and the CASTILLO courts, through
inferences from certain facts, concluded that the appellants were.
The conclusion is rather tenuous. While the rigorous cross-
examination of the appellants in all these cases has established
close relationship among the appellants by reason of their residence
and work, (Benito, as sand-and-gravel truck driver and Mejia,
Fabito, and Paraan as his keepers), it miserably failed to establish
any relationship between them and the five others headed by
Calimquim. What then looms large in our minds is that the
appellants and the five others happened to be passengers of
Landingins jeepney by accident, not by design. If the appellants
were with the five others until Sual, Pangasinan, it was because
they were intimidated and made to lie down on their bellies inside
the jeepney.
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
Q Now, in paragraph 8 of your statement, you said and you
mentioned the names of the person and I will now read:
Q How about the true names of the suspect, do you know them?
can you tell this Court why these persons were written in your
statement?
Q So, were it not of the police and the pictures, you were not able
to identify the accused, is that correct?
COURT:
Q What you do mean when you said that that you can recognize
three (3) of them?
Q Who of the four (4) accused who sitted [sic] near you?
A The one wearing red T-shirt, the second to the last of the four
accused.
Q So, how were you able to identify these [sic] person who is [sic]
wearing in [sic] red T-shirt?
Q Now, you said you recognized the persons who sat besides [sic]
the driver, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about the person sitting in front of you whom you pointed to
this person wearing in red T-shirt?
Q How about the person next to the one with red t-shirt, do you
remember his shirt?
PROS. MARATA:
Q How many times were you stabbed by the nine persons, four of
whom were inside the courtroom?
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
A Twice, sir.
COURT:
Q A while ago you mentioned there were two (2) initial stab blows
with respect to the other stab blow who delivered this stab blow?
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
Q When you said his companions and Gregorio Mejia are you
referring to the five (5) other persons as the companions of
Gregorio Mejia who participated in stabbing you?
A I think it is about six (6) of them who stabbed me, sir.68 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
He could not remember anymore the person who inflicted the last
stab wound, and then declined to point to anyone of the herein four
appellants as the person who did it. Thus:
COURT:
Q When they stopped stabbing you they did not stab you anymore?
Q You said you were stabbed on your right shoulder, who stabbed
you among these nine (9) persons?
COURT:
xxx
Finally, Catugas was not entirely free from any ulterior motive in
implicating the appellants. He admitted that he demanded P80,000
from the parents of the appellants, but before they could give the
money on the agreed date, he testified against the appellants in the
LARON court. The following exchanges between him and counsel for
the defense before the CASTILLO court are revealing:
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
Q After you were released from the hospital, were you able to talk
with the father of Edwin Benito?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you told them about your expenses in the hospital, is that
correct?
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q What you are trying to convey to the Court is that you are settling
the case with Edwin Benito the amount of P80,000.00?
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
A They will not pay that amount on that date, we have agreed of
another date for them to pay, sir.
COURT:
Q What you want to tell the Honorable Court is that you agreed to
pay you P80,000.00 but he cannot pay you at that very moment?
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
COURT:
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
A PROSECUTOR MARATA:
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
COURT:
Sustained. Hypothetical.
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
Q You said that there was the agreed date, what happened on the
agreed date?
A The date has not yet arrived but I have already testified, sir.
COURT:
Q When you said you have already testified, you are referring to
your testimony in RTC Branch 44?
A I told him that our children telling us that they did not commit any
wrong and I told them to tell the truth and we are not consenting
them to whatever they have done if they have done something
wrong.
COURT:
Q You consider Virgilio Catugas as a liar and you are not a liar?
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
Q Can you tell this Court what did you tell him about that expenses?
COURT:
But the parents could not deliver the P20,000 each was to pay, for
they could not afford it. Conrado so declared, thus:
ATTY. TAMINAYA:
Q Why?
No costs.