G.R. No. L-31403. December 14, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JACOBITO MARQUEZ, ALIAS “BOY MARQUEZ”, SATURNINO JARON, CELESTINO ABRIGO, ALIAS “CELING WARAY”, ALIAS “CELESTINO JAVINEZ”…
CONCEPCION JR., J.:
On the evening of December
23, 1965, inside an A.C. passenger jeepney in the poblacion of Davao City, with the driver and six
passengers, victim Rolando Jardiel was suddenly stabbed by one of the other
passengers from behind, causing his death later at the Broken-shire Hospital, where
he was taken for treatment.[1]
The first information filed for murder, dated December 21, 1966,
or about one year after the crime was committed, accused only Jacobito Marquez,
alias “Boy
Marquez” of the crime.[2]
The Amended Information, dated February 28, 1967, charges
Jacobito Marquez, alias “Boy Marquez”, Saturnino Jaron and Celestino Abrigo, alias
“Celestino Waray”, alias “Celestino Javinez”, of
murder by conspiracy, as follows:
“That on or about December 23, 1965, in the City of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-mentioned accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one
another, with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to kill,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and stabbed one
Rolando Jardiel, thereby inflicting upon him the following:
“Hemorrhage, severe, secondary to stab wound at the chest,
left side at the level of the third rib, involving the heart left auricle.
“Hemorrhage 1000 c.c..
“Cardiac Tamponade
Stabb Wound, 2nd
left
Intercostal
spaces.”
which injuries caused his death.
“That the commission of the foregoing offense was attended by
the aggravating circumstance of night?time, the accused having purposely sought it to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
“Contrary to law.”[3]
All the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.[4]
Later, accused Saturnino Jaron changed his plea to that of guilty. He was meted out an indeterminate penalty of
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal
as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.[5]
Proceedings against accused Jacobito Marquez and Celestino Abrigo
continued to determine their liability in the charge of murder by
conspiracy. After trial, the lower
court was convinced that “conspiracy exists in the case at bar as shown in
details in the above discussion and analysis of the facts and circumstances of
the case.”[6]
The trial court opined that “once conspiracy is established,
each conspirator is privy to the acts of the others; the act of one conspirator
is the act of all the conspirators”.[7] The
Court concluded “there is no more need to find out who delivered the
fatal knife thrust to the victim for the act of the culprit is the act of all
the rest.”[8]
The trial court decided the case by convicting the accused beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, with dispositive portion as follows:
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Jacobito Marquez, Celestino
Abrigo and Saturnino Jaron guilty as principals beyond reasonable doubt of
having committed the crime of Murder charged in the amended information and in
the manner alleged therein and there being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and considering the attendant circumstance of treachery and the
sudden attack to insure impunity, the Court hereby sentences each and every one
of the said accused to suffer life imprisonment according to Article 248,
Section 1, Revised Penal Code with the accessories of the law and to pay jointly
and severally the heirs of the de-decased the sum of P12,000.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment due to the nature of the crime committed.
“Since the accused Saturnino Jaron has already been sentenced
of the same crime on October 9,
1967 on a plea of guilty he is hereby excluded from the effects of this
judgment.
“SO ORDERED.”[9]
Accused Jacobito Marquez appealed the judgment of conviction.[10]
This Court on June 23, 1970, ordered the temporary release of appellant after
filing a bond.[11]
Accused Celestino Abrigo escaped
from the Davao City Jail on July 14, 1969 and has remained at large.[12]
The version of the prosecution is as follows:
On December 23, 1965, in the evening, Vicente Baez was driving an
AC passenger jeepney in the poblacion of Davao City. Between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., Baez picked up
Bernardino Mempin at Claveria (now Claro Recto) Street. Later, Rolando Jardiel joined them at San
Pedro Street. The trio proceeded to
Meding’s place at corner Bolton and Magallanes Streets where each took a bottle
or two of beer.[13]
At the G.S.I.S. building in Matina, Davao City, where the victim
Jardiel and Mempin were employed, there was a Christmas party that night. Jardiel suggested going to the party, so the
trio were on their way. Baez, the
driver of the jeepney was seated on the left front side, Jardiel on his right
side, and Mempin on the front right side. This, Jardiel was seated between Baez on his left and Mempin on his
right in the front seat.[14] At
Bankerohan, on their way to Matina, the passenger jeepney was hailed by four
persons. The group of four, Celestino
Abrigo, Saturnino Jaron, Perfecto Obenza and Jacobito Marquez, took the rear
seats.[15]
Appellant Marquez and Celestino Abrigo sat together, with appellant Marquez
directly behind Mempin on the right front seat. Facing the former, were Perfecto Obenza and Saturnino Jaron, the
latter seated behind the driver Baez who was at the left front seat.[16]
When the jeepney reached the Coca-Cola plant at Matina,
approaching Tulip Drive Crossing, someone behind told the driver to stop. Suddenly, appellant Jacobito Marquez stabbed
Rolando Jardiel with a Batangas knife.[17]
Jardiel cried out “I was stabbed.[18]
Mempin, hearing this, looked behind and immediately held Marquez’ right hand
holding a knife.[19]
Mempin immediately alighted, still holding Marquez who was struggling but the
former released his hold upon Marquez when he saw Celestino Abrigo about to
throw a stone at him.[20] The
driver Vicente Baez saw Mempin when he held the wrist of Marquez.[21]
The group of four afterwards ran away.[22]
Jardiel asked his friends to bring him to a hospital. He
was brought to the Brokenshire
Hospital where he died.[23]
The autopsy on the cadaver conducted by Dr. Juan Abear, Jr.,
medico legal officer of Davao City, revealed the following post mortem
examination results:
“Hemorrhage, severe, secondary to stab wound at the chest,
left side at the level of the
third rib, involving the heart
left auricle.
“Hemorrhage 1000 c.c.
“Cardiac Tamponade Stab Wound, 2nd left Intercostal
spaces.”[24]
The cause of death was “hemorrhage, secondary to stab
wound” on the left heart inflicted by sharp pointed instrument, possibly a knife.[25]
The version of the defense is:
It is not disputed
that Rolando Jardiel was stabbed inside an AC jeep in the evening of December
23, 1965, at Matina, Davao City. The victim was then seated at the
front seat of the jeepney at the right side of the driver and the alleged
aggressor was one of the four passengers seated at the back of the jeep, who
all fled after the victim was stabbed. Appellant was one of the said passengers.[26]
The version of the defense is supported by the testimonies of the appellant Jacobito Marquez, the accused Celestino Abrigo, the co-passenger Perfecto Obenza, and Saturnino
Jaron, who pleaded guilty that he was
the one who stabbed Rolando Jardiel. Jaron claimed he had no
intention to stab Jardiel but the latter kept staring at him so he stabbed him.[27]
Appellant claims that on the night of December 23, 1965, while
checking his personnel at the Coca-Cola Plant in Matina, Davao City, he met
Perfecto Obenza with the latter’s companions Celestino Abrigo and Saturnino
Jaron. They planned to see the
Coca-Cola Christmas decorations. In order
to hear juke box music, they proceeded to Ching’s place at Bankerohan where they
had some drinks. Because the four
wanted to enjoy the “floor show” at the Matina Nite Club, they
boarded an AC jeep bound for Matina. All of a sudden, Saturnino Jaron told the driver of the jeep to stop
when the jeep was approaching the “Tulip Drive”. When the jeep was about to stop, Saturnino
Jaron stood up. Without saying any
word, he suddenly, unexpectedly and surprisingly raised his left hand and
stabbed the passenger seated in front of him. That victim was Rolando Jardiel. Jaron, Obenza and Abrigo alighted from the jeep and ran to the
“Tulip Drive.” Appellant Jacobito Marquez was so surprised by the
sudden behavior of Jaron, he was left alone in the jeep. He became afraid, so he alighted and went to
the house of a friend. He kept silent,
regarding this incident as he was afraid of retaliation.[28]
The basis of the trial court’s judgment of conviction contained in its
decision concerning appellant is that conspiracy was proven among the three
accused.[29]
The victim received only one stab wound on his left chest
inflicted by one person.[30]
Appellant can be held liable only if a conspiracy between appellant and Jaron
can be proven.
It is a well established rule that when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it,
conspiracy exists.[31]
Conspiracy can also exist upon the proven concerted criminal act on the same
occasion of several persons.
A scrutiny of the evidence in this case shows no evidence to
establish a preconceived plan to commit the crime. Jaron admitted that the attack on the victim done by him alone
was sudden, unexpected, and at the spur of the moment. It is fundamental, that when the criminal
act is not the result of a pre-conceived plan, the criminal liabilities of the
participants can only be considered in the light of their individual
participation, and not of a common criminal design. [32]
Conspiracy to commit a crime must be established by positive
evidence, and conviction must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and presumptions.[33]
It is clear that from the circumstances proven, no conspiracy
existed between Jaron and appellant. The evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 15, 1969, in Criminal
Case No. 10277, of the Court of First Instance of Davao, convicting appellant
Jacobito Marquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE with respect to appellant, who is ACQUITTED on the ground of
reasonable doubt, with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, (Chairman), Abad Santos, De Castro, Ericta, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino J., see attached
dissent.
[1]
pp. 3-4, Appellee’s Brief.
[2]
pp. 1-2, Original Record, Criminal Case No. 10277, CFI, Davao.
[3]
pp. 21-22, Original Record.
[4]
pp. 23-24, 52-53; Id.
[5]
pp. 59-60, Original Record; pp. 2-4, t.s.n., October 9, 1967.
[6]
p. 14, Decision, p. 224, Original Record.
[7]
p. 224, Original Record.
[8]
Id.
[9]
pp. 224-224, Original Record.
[10]
p. 4, rollo.
[11]
p. 91, Id.
[12]
p. 60, Id.
[13]
pp. 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 28, 29, 41, 43, t.s.n.
[14]
pp. 7, 16, 28, 29, 42, t.s.n.
[15]
pp. 6, 15, 29, 30, t.s.n.
[16]
Exh. “A”, p. 1, Folder
of Exhibits; pp. 7, 30, 31, 32,
t.s.n.
[17]
pp. 8, 9, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, t.s.n.
[18]
pp. 34, 35, t.s.n.
[19]
pp. 31, 32, 34, 35, 43, 44, 46, t.s.n.
[20]
pp. 33, 34, t.s.n.
[21]
pp. 9, 10, 11, t.s.n.
[22]
pp. 36; 115, 198, ????? t.s.n.
[23]
pp. 8, 9, 37, t.s.n.
[24]
Exhs. “B”, “C”, “D” and “D-1”, pp. 2-5, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 57, 58, 61,
t.s.n.
[25]
pp. 60, 65, t.s.n., Exhs. “B-3”, “D”, “D-2”, pp. 2, 4, 5, Folder of Exhibits.
[26]
pp. 10-11, Appellant’s Brief.
[27]
p. 13, Appellant’s Brief, pp. 106-125, 150-169, 195-203, 225-237, t.s.n.
[28]
pp. 13-14, Appellant’s Brief.
[29]
pp. 221-224, Original Record.
[30]
pp. 60, 65, t.s.n.; Exhs. “B-3” “D”, “D-2”, pp.
2, 4, 5, Folder of Exhibits.
[31]
Article 8, Revised Penal Code.
[32]
People vs. Cutura, G.R. No. L-12702, March 30, 1962.
[33]
People vs. Chan, 26 O.G. 1481;
People vs. Otero, 21 O.G. 669.
6 pt
6 pt
0
3
DISSENTING OPINION
AQUINO, J:
I dissent. The guilt of Jacobito
Marquez was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of Bernardo Mempin
who seized the hand of Marquez right after Marquez had stabbed Rolando
Jardiel. Marquez’ hand was still
holding the murder weapon, a Batangas knife.
Marquez never told the police that it was Saturnino Jaron who
stabbed Jardiel. He adopted the theory
that Jaron stabbed Jardiel only when he (Marquez) testified in court.
On the other hand, Jaron could easily admit that he stabbed
Jardiel because Jaron was already convicted of murder in a prior case. That was alleged in the original and amended
informations as follows:
“That the commission of the foregoing offense was attended
by the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, the accused having purposely
sought it to facilitate the commission of the crime, and recidivism, the
accused Saturnino Jaron having been convicted of murder in CC 9459 in Davao on
Aug. 31, 1966.”
The above underlined or italicized clause is written in ink in
the original and amended informations but is not included in the information
as quoted on page 2 of the majority opinion.
This is one case where the trial court’s finding on the guilt of
the accused should be binding on this
Court, Said the trial court:
“A careful
scrutiny and analysis of the statements of the accused specially that of Jacobito Marques would point out clearly that their statements are
concocted and stained with vice
and are unbelievable due to the inherent inconsistencies, contradictions and
improbabilities that are found in all of them.
“As we analyze and evaluate them hereinbelow we will notice at
once that they are riddled with falsities and would affect seriously
their credibility and probity as witnesses as well as the trustworthiness of
their testimony.
“Marquez testified that he was investigated by the police of
Davao City twice: the first, on December 25, 1965 and the next was on December 16, 1966. During the course of these investigations
which covered a period of one year he did not tell the police the facts that he
stated before this Court; that is, that Jaron knifed Jardiel to death and that
his co-accused, Celestino Abrigo, was his companion in the jeep during the
stabbing incident. His reason is that
he was afraid that Jaron may inflict revenge or retaliation to him if he would
involve him in the crime.
“This is best illustrated by the following portions of the
records, quoted thus:
“ATTY. TOLENTINO: Q. – Mr. Marquez, when you were investigated
in the police department, did you not report it was Saturnino Jaron who stabbed
Rolando Jardiel? – A. – No, sir.
“Q. – You did not also tell the police department that your companion was Celestino Abrigo? – A.-
Yes, sir.
“COURT: Q – Why did you not tell the police what you are
stating now before this Court? – A. – Because I am the one being prosecuted.
(tsn. pp. 141-142, 146-148.)
“Marquez did not tell the police that Perfecto Obenza was with
him during that stabbing-killing incident subject of the present inquiry (tsn
p. 142).
“The Court asked Marquez whether he told the police that
Abrigo was with him during that night in question. He answered he did not know (tsn pp. 143 and 148).
“In the direct examination Marquez related at length that it
was Jaron who stabbed and killed the deceased in his presence and in the presence the other accused and their companion, Perfecto
Obenza.
“If it is true that knifed to death Jardiel why did not Marques tell that the fact to
the during the investigation
held on December 25, 1965
and on December 16, 1966?
Why would it take him a year to reveal before this Court the fact that Jaron killed Jardiel?
“If it is true that Obenza and Abrigo were with him during the
night of that incident in question, why did he not tell that fact during the
course of the two investigations conducted by the police?
“This will only tend to prove that Marquez wanted to conceal
and suppress the truth by devising a scheme to allow Jaron to assume the crime
in order to free himself and to give a new look to the picture so as to deceive
and mislead the Court to track down the true facts of the case. His only excuse to defend his acts of not
revealing the facts for a long time is the alleged imaginary fear created in
his mind that Jaron would take a revenge against him if he would implicate him
in the crime.
“Strange is this defense adopted by Marquez and the other accused for no one of them has presented a
bit of evidence to prove a single act of threat, intimidation or hostility on
the part of Jaron that may justify them to entertain in their mind that fear
which has disturbed their imagination so much, when in fact Jaron has not done
anything to cause such alarm.
“The other defendants, Celestino Abrigo and defense witness,
Perfecto Obenza, corroborated the statements of Marquez to establish the fact
that Jaron knifed the deceased to death and the concealment of the crime to the
authorities for a period of one year due to their fear that Jaron might inflict
revenge and acts of hatred to them in the future.
“To prove the unworthiness of the defense’ position, Obenza
testified that he did not know who really stabbed the victim although he saw
the hands of Jaron (tsn pp. 198 and 215) and that, although he knew the
deceased at least one year prior to the incident in question he did not know
that he was the one stabbed. Considering
that the crime was done in his presence it would be difficult to believe him
that he did not know what happened to Jardiel.
“Even after two years from the date of the incident at issue
he told Francisco Pangilan the Acting Chief of Police of Davao City, that he
did not know who was stabbed by Jaron.
“Statements of this nature are highly suspicious, incredible
and devoid of truth for being unnatural and vicious specially when they
confirmed Marquez’ statements about the concealment of the facts of the crime
for a long time in the manner related above.
“Jaron pleaded guilty to
the offense murder and admitted that
he was serving sentence not only virtue of the judgment of conviction meted to him in this case but also
due to another sentence rendered against him for having killed a certain
Fructuoso Palad, Jr., Crim. Case No.
9595 (tsn 246) and that he killed Jardiel because the latter stared at
him. His own admission is a reflection of the bad moral character of
the accused and his statement must be received with caution.”
Judge Alfredo I.
Gonzales, the learned trial judge, carefully examined the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and could not find any valid reason or justification for disregarding them. He noted that the said witnesses had no reason
to be biased against the accused or to color their declarations “with
impurities and vices in order to suppress the truth”.
He observed their conduct
and demeanor on the witness stand and noted that they testified in a candid, natural, simple and straight forward
manner. The severe cross-examination to
which they were subjected only served to make their testimonies “clearer
and more convincing”.
Judge Gonzales concluded
that the prosecution eyewitnesses told the truth when they testified that Marquez
stabbed Jardiel.
I vote for the affirmance
of the trial court’s judgment of conviction.