G.R. No. 69619. September 15, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR FERNANDEZ, ERNESTO FERNANDEZ, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Albay, Branch VIII, in Criminal Case No. 2772
convicting appellants of the crime of murder, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding the accused Salvador Fernandez
and Ernesto Fernandez, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder,
defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court hereby sentences Salvador Fernandez and Ernesto Fernandez to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased the amount of P12,000.00; to pay P15,000.00
or as moral and exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.”
Appellants were indicted by the Provincial Fiscal of Albay for the crime of murder defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in an information
dated November 23, 1959
(Records, p. 30) stating that the crime was committed as follows:
“That on or about the 20th day of October, 1959, in the
municipality of Libon, province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together
and mutually helping one another for a common purpose, with evident premeditation,
treachery and with deliberate intent to
kill, and being then armed with deadly weapons, to wit: two (2) bolos and two (2) firearms, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot, attack and hack with
the said firearms and bolos one PORFIRIO CANANEA thereby inflicting upon him
fatal wounds which directly caused the spontaeous
death of the said PORFIRIO CANANEA.
That in the commission of the crime, the following aggravating circumstances
were present:
1. Superior strength
2. use of vehicle (jeep)
3. cruelty by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victims.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
All the accused were granted bail of P30,000.00, in an order of
the trial court, the Regional Trial Court of Albay, Branch
I, dated April 28, 1960 (Orig. Records, pp. 119-120). Upon arraignment on August 16, 1960 all the accused pleaded “not
guilty” to the offense charged (Orig. Records, p. 147).
On January 27, 1962, Mrs. Maria Cananea,
the widow sent a letter to the Secretary of Justice, seeking early disposition
of the case and complaining of its continuous postponement (Orig. Records, p.
262) and on February 5, 1962, a telegram to the Office of the President,
requesting investigation of the delay in the disposition of the case and
complaining among others, of the loss of interest by the trial court (Orig. Records, p.
312). Said court reacted by ordering the
widow to show cause why she should not be held in contempt (Orig. Records, p.
315). It appears that the case had
already been set for trial when the widow sent her letter to the Secretary of
Justice. The trial Court exonerated the
widow, considering her fairly satisfactory explanation (Orig. Records, p. 320).
Since the hearing on September 11, 1963 the case was tried
jointly with Criminal Cases Nos. 2594 and 2657 and later on, also with Criminal
Case No. 2632 in view of the manifestation by the defense counsel that the
prosecution witnesses and evidences in Criminal Cases Nos. 2594 and 2657 be
also considered as defense witnesses and evidence in Criminal Case No. 2772
although the victim in Criminal Case No. 2772 had nothing to do nor was
implicated in any manner in the other cases.
Thus the delay in the trial of the case, according to
the observation of the Judge of Branch VIII of the Court who penned the
appealed decision (Rollo, p. 1138). During the trial of the case one of the
accused, Herman Fernandez, died (Orig. Records, p. 603).
On November 8, 1976 Alexander Cananea,
son of the victim in Criminal Case No. 2772, wrote the President asking for
the early disposition of the case (Orig. Records, p. 934). The letter was forwarded by the Court to the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Albay
in a 2nd Indorsement dated December 14, 1976 (Orig.
Records, p. 32).
The decision was finally promulgated on May 29, 1984 (Orig. Records, p. 1186). On the same date the bonds filed by the
accused were cancelled (Orig. Records, p. 1185) and the accused taken into
custody as detention prisoners (Orig. Records p. 1187) considering that the
judgment is one of conviction.
On April 12, 1981
accused filed a motion for reconsideration (Orig. Records, p. 1188) which was
denied by the lower court in its Order
dated June 13, 1984
(Orig. Records, p. 1202).
This Court resolved to accept the appeal, in its Resolution dated
December 2, 1985 (Rollo, p. 134). Upon
the request of the appellant, (Rollo, p. 157) the Court, in its Resolution dated November
3, 1986 resolved to
appoint Atty. Jacinto Jimenez of the Ateneo de Manila
College of Law as their counsel de oficio (Rollo, p. 158).
The Brief for Defendants-Appellants was filed on January 12, 1987 (Rollo,
p. 162); the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, on April 30, 1987 (Rollo,
p. 171). The Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants was
filed on May 21, 1987 (Rollo, p. 289).
The facts of the case, as presented by Plaintiff-Appellee (Rollo, pp. 173-176) are
as follows:
“On October 20, 1959
at about seven o’clock in the
morning, Salvador Fernandez hired a passenger jeepney
driven by Victor Romero from the poblacion of Polangui to San Jose, Libon, Albay. Upon
boarding the vehicle, Salvador instructed Victor to pass by the station of the Manila Railroad
Company in Polangui where they picked up Salvador‘s companions, namely, Herman Hernandez and Ernesto Fernandez at the Bañares Carenderia near the
station. Thereafter they proceeded to San Jose with Herman and Ernesto instructing Victor
to overtake an Alatco car if they pass by one. On the way, Herman and Salvador ordered Victor to stop in front of two (2)
men with bolos. Herman and Salvador requested the two men to lend them their
bolos. Initially, they refused but later
they acceded when Herman and Salvador told them that they were following a
thief. Victor noticed that Herman and
Ernesto were each carrying a short gun’ They continued
on their way to San Jose and upon seeing the Alatco car, Victor
overtook it pursuant to the express instruction of Salvador. (pp. 71-86, tsn, December 7, 1960, p.m.)
Upon reaching San Jose,
Herman, Salvador and Ernesto
alighted from the jeepney. Victor parked the vehicle at a parking area and proceeded to a
store about sixteen (16) meters away from the jeepney. While eating, Victor noticed that an Alatco car arrived. He heard an explosion and when he turned, he
saw Ernesto Fernandez holding a gun and shot a man he did not recognize. The man attempted to run. But Herman and Salvador overtook the victim and repeatedly hacked
him causing him to fall to the ground.
Thereafter, Ernesto, Herman and Salvador, rushed back to the parked vehicle and
instructed Victor to drive back to Polangui. While on thier way,
Salvador directed Victor to pass by the poblacion of Libon, Albay where they picked up a woman and her two
children. Salvador instructed Victor to proceed to Guinobatan, Albay. Before reaching the poblacion,
Salvador ordered Victor to stop. Thereafter, he and his companions alighted
and told Victor not to be afraid, Victor then proceeded back to Polangui, Albay (pp. 87-110, tsn, December 7, 1960, p.m.)
At about 12:00 o’clock noon of the same day, two P.C. soldiers came to
Victor’s house and brought him to the Ligao Detachment
in Albay where he was investigated. He learned that the man who was shot and
hacked was Porfirio Cananea
who died as a result thereof. He gave a
written statement to the P.C. authorities (pp. 112-113 and 124, tsn, December 8, 1960, a.m.).
Defendants-appellants assign the following errors (Rollo, p.
162):
I.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
ACTED IN CONSPIRACY.
III.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME WAS QUALIFIED BY EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION.
IV.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME WAS AGGRAVATED BY CRUELTY.
V.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN SENTENCING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS TO PAY DAMAGES.
The guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. They were positively identified by prosecution
witnesses Victor Romero and Epifanio Peñalosa as the perpetrators
of the crime. Both testified that
Ernesto Fernandez shot Porfirio Cananea
while his brothers Salvador and
Herman hacked the victim (TSN, pp. 86-87); 369-370; pp. 145-149, 180). There is no reason to believe that they may
have been mistaken in their identification of accused-appellants. Victor Romero was the driver of the jeepney hired by Salvador
at Polangui in the morning of October 20, 1959 to take him and his co-accused
brothers Ernesto and Herman to Bo. San Jose,
Libon, Albay TSN, p.
72). They were his only passengers from Polangui to San Jose.
Undisputedly he was in the scene of the crime. Epifanio Peñalosa, on the other hand, is related to the wives of
Ernesto and Herman. Perpetua
Non, the wife of Ernesto is his niece, being a daughter of his sister. Cecilia Olival,
wife of Herman, is another niece because the mother of Cecilia is a first
cousin of his (TSN, pp. 152-153). He has
no motive to testify against the Fernandez brothers. He is not related to Porfirio
Cananea who is only a brother of his son-in-law,
Felipe Cananea (TSN, p. 175). He was a co-passenger of the victim in the Alatco bus from Polangui. He alighted at San Jose,
together with the other passengers, to wait for another bus that would take
them to Pantao (TSN, pp. 142-144). Thus his presence at the
scene of the crime. Positive
identification of the accused by the witnesses proved his commission of the
crime (People v. Perez, 102 SCRA 352 [1918]).
The testimonies of Victor Romero and Epifanio
Peñalosa are corroborated by the testimony of Dr.
Alfredo Se, Municipal Health Officer of Libon, who
performed the autopsy on the victim’s body.
Based on the autopsy report (Exhibit “F”) he made (Orig.
Records, p. 6), Dr. Se testified having found three (3) gunshot wounds and
seventeen (17) wounds on the body of the late Porfirio
Cananea and that the multiple incised wounds were
caused by the hacking of a bolo (TSN, pp. 221, 344, 386).
They are also corroborated by the testimony of Juan Cerdeña, Chief of Police of Libon,
Albay, testifying for the prosecution. Based on his report on his
actual investigation of the case at the scene of the
crime (Exh. “E”, Orig. Records, p. 8), Cerdeña
testified among others, having found two (2) bolos at the scene of the crime
(TSN, pp. 199-200).
Ernesto and Salvador
testified in court after the death of Herman (Rollo,
p. 253). Both imputed the crime to their
dead brother, Herman (TSN, pp. 817-831; pp.
1035, 1102-1104) as the one who shot the victim to death and hacked
him. Their testimonies are not however
credible. Their positive identification
by eyewitnesses belie their defense (People v. Diamonon, 94 SCRA 227 [1979]).
In effect, the
testimonies of Salvador and Ernesto
as to the death of Porfirio Cananea
by gunshot and hacking with bolos corroborated the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses.
Conspiracy, in the statutory language, exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it (People v. Ogapay, 66 SCRA 210 [1975]).
It need not be proved by direct
evidence but its existence may be inferred from the acts of appellants tending
to show a continuity of criminal purpose or design (People v. Santalani, 93 SCRA 315 [1979]); it may be deduced from evidence of facts and circumstances (People v. Yu, 80
SCRA 382 [1977]); it is proven by the fact that appellants arrived at the scene
of the crime together, all armed and helped one another in assaulting the victim (People v. Panuelos, 136 SCRA 501 [1985]).
It is undisputed that the accused-appellants hired a jeep in Polangui, Albay, driven by Victor Romero, to take them to San Jose, Libon. They arrived at San Jose armed with guns and bolos. When Ernesto fired at Profirio
Cananea and the victim attempted to run Herman and Salvador both armed with bolos ran after him, hacking
him repeatedly until he fell to the ground face downward. Even while they were still attacking with their
bolos on the victim, Ernesto shot the latter again on the forehead. They left the scene of the crime together,
still aboard their hired jeep.
Obviously, appellants cooperated and labored to the same end – the death
of the victim, leaving no doubt of the existence of conspiracy in this case.
In People v. Garcia (94 SCRA 14 [1979]) the Court said that when
a group of men more or less give chase to a single unarmed individual running
for his life and they overtake him and inflict wounds on his body by means of
shooting, stabbing, hitting with pieces of wood, there is conspiracy to kill;
and it does not detract from their status as conspirators that there is no
evidence of previous agreement, it being sufficient that their wills have
concurred and they labored to achieve the same end.
To properly appreciate evident premeditation, it is necessary to establish proof, as
clear as the evidence of the crime itself about (1) the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to
his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and the execution to allow him to reflect (People v. Johnson, 103 SCRA 530
[1981]; People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA 539 [1984]). To qualify the killing there should have been
proof that the appellants had met the
night before, discussed among themselves, and agreed to kill their victim the following morning (People v. Verges, 105 SCRA 744 [1981]). In the instant case there is no proof that accused-appellants met for the
purpose of discussing and agreeing among themselves to kill the victim. The element of sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution of the criminal act to afford the culprits
full opportunity for calm relfection on the
consequences of the crime committed, had not been established.
Only one circumstance, however, is necessary to qualify an
offense as murder (People v. Dueño, 90 SCRA 23
[1979]). While evident premeditation may
not have been established, treachery which qualifies the killing to murder has
been amply proven. The attack made on Peofirio Cananea was
sudden and unexpected. He had just
alighted from the bus unaware that he would be attacked. When he was first shot by Ernesto he was not
given any opportunity to defend himself.
There is treachery in a sudden and unexpected attack which renders the
victim unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of
the attack (People v. Carzano, 95 SCRA 146 [1983]; People v. Beltran, 137
SCRA 508 [1984]; People v. Escoltero, 139 SCRA 218 [1985]).
Abuse of superior strength is not a separate and distinct
aggravating circumstance as it is deemed absorbed in the qualifying
circumstance of treachery (People v. Tajon, 128 SCRA
656 [1984]; People v. Rosario, 134 SCRA 496 [1985]).
The aggravating circumstance of cruelty cannot be
considered. For cruelty to exist, it
must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making the victim
suffer slowly and gradually causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in
the consummation of the act (People v. Gatcho, 103
SCRA 207 [1981]). While the victim was
shot three (3) times and hacked several times until he died, the infliction of
the wounds was continuous rather than slow and gradual. Inflicting various successive wounds upon a
person to cause his death without appreciable time intervening between the
infliction of one wound and that of another, as in the present case, does not constitute cruelty (People v. Ang, 139 SCRA 115 [1985]).
Every person criminally liable is civilly liable (People v. Zaganay, 127 SCRA 128 [1984]). Following the precedent set in People v. de
la Fuente (126 SCRA 518 [1983]) reiterated in People
v. Centeno (130 SCRA 198 [1984]) the civil indemnity for murder is increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from, finding
Salvador Fernandez and Ernesto Fernandez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is
hereby AFFIRMED in all respects, except the P12,000.00
indemnity for the death of the victim which is hereby increased to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, and Cruz, JJ., concur.
Gancayco, J., on leave.