PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLAND “TEREK” DIESTRO, JOSE “JOE” AGUIRRE AND ROLAND “TANGKAD” VILLARUEL, ACCUSED,

People versus Diestro

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Roland Diestro, known as Terek, together with Jose Aguirre and Roland Villaruel, for the killing of Senen Mendoza by gunfire in Quezon City. The case matters to a reviewee because the Supreme Court here draws a sharp line between a sudden attack and a treacherous one, and because it shows how the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength are each proved, or fail to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219, after trial on the merits, rendered its decision in May 2013 finding Roland Diestro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with an award of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages to the heirs of Senen Mendoza. Diestro appealed that decision directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the finding of guilt, the appreciation of treachery, and the appreciation of abuse of superior strength. The case against Jose Aguirre was dismissed when he died of cardio pulmonary failure pending litigation, and Roland Villaruel was never arraigned and has remained at large.

Facts

On the evening of May 24, 2001, at around eight o'clock, the three accused fired at the house of Senen Mendoza on Iris Street, Fairview, Quezon City. Senen and his family were preparing to retire when they heard the shots. Senen went outside, boarded the family Tamaraw FX, lit its headlights toward the attackers, and drove the vehicle away from his house to draw them off and spare his family.

The three accused ran alongside the Tamaraw FX and kept firing at its front side, hitting Senen on the forehead, eyebrow, right arm, and shoulder, until the vehicle stopped. The attackers fled. Senen was brought to the hospital and declared dead on arrival. The prosecution's eyewitness, Ma. Luz Nisperos, testified that she saw the three men, including Diestro, first fire at an L300 van, which drove on, before they turned their guns on the FX and chased it while shooting.

For his part, Diestro claimed that Villaruel's shotgun accidentally slipped and discharged, and that he merely went home afterward. He also claimed that when the police invited him in August 2001, he was locked up and physically abused until he admitted the offense before the public prosecutor. The trial court rejected his denial and alibi and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Applicable Provisions

The decision states the definition of treachery as follows:

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

This definition controls the second issue, because the Court measures the shooting of Senen against these very elements and finds them wanting.

On abuse of superior strength, the decision states the rule thus:

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.

This rule governs the third issue, because the Court finds that the three armed attackers deliberately took advantage of their combined strength against one unarmed man.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the finding of guilt. Diestro's defense was denial and alibi, and alibi requires proof that he was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. He admitted being present at the place, date, and time, so his alibi failed on its own terms. Against his denial stood the positive, categorical, and consistent identification by eyewitness Ma. Luz Nisperos, and the Court held that positive identification prevails over alibi and denial, which are easily fabricated and inherently unreliable.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the accused that treachery was absent. For treachery to be appreciated, two elements must concur: the employment of means of execution that would insure the safety of the accused from retaliatory acts of the intended victim and leave the latter without an opportunity to defend himself, and the deliberate or conscious adoption of those means. The Court stressed that suddenness alone does not make an attack treacherous, because the mode of attack must be planned and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. Here, the initial gunshots forewarned Senen and his family; Senen had ample time to reflect on how to repel the danger; and the eyewitness showed that the attackers first fired at an L300 van before turning on the FX. The killing was not planned and the mode of attack was not consciously adopted, so any doubt as to treachery was resolved in favor of the accused.

On evident premeditation, the Court likewise found no proof of the time the accused determined to kill, of any act showing they clung to that determination, or of a lapse of time sufficient for reflection. Mere presumptions and inferences were insufficient.

On the third issue, the Court held that abuse of superior strength attended the killing. The three accused outnumbered their victim, were all armed with firearms while he was unarmed and alone, and continuously fired at the FX he was driving. The Court explained that what matters is not the number of assailants as against one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense, which they plainly did.

Doctrine

Treachery requires two elements: the employment of means of execution that insure the offender's safety from retaliation and leave the victim no opportunity to defend himself, and the deliberate or conscious adoption of that mode of attack. Mere suddenness of attack is not enough; the mode of attack must be planned and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events, and treachery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt like the crime itself.

Abuse of superior strength requires a notorious inequality of forces between victim and aggressor, a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous to the aggressor, and the aggressor's deliberate taking advantage of that superiority in committing the crime. It is not the number of assailants that counts, but whether they used their combined strength to consummate the offense.

Evident premeditation requires proof of the time the accused determined to commit the offense, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to that determination, and a lapse of time sufficient for him to reflect on the consequences of his act, all based on external acts indicative of deliberate planning.

Finally, positive identification that is categorical and consistent, with no showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness, prevails over denial and alibi, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Roland Diestro for murder, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of damages to the heirs of Senen Mendoza, while ruling that treachery was not present and that abuse of superior strength attended the killing.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a sudden and unexpected attack is not treacherous unless the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the mode of attack to insure the killing without risk to himself. Examiners use this case to test whether you can separate suddenness from treachery, and to test the rule that abuse of superior strength turns on the aggressors' taking advantage of their combined strength, not on their number alone.