THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO MIL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Mil

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Pedro Mil, an enlisted man of the Philippine Constabulary, on mandatory review of a death sentence. The trial court convicted him of two counts of murder for the killings of Augusto Arteche and Pedro Arteche, and the Supreme Court took up the case because a penalty of death cannot be carried out without its review. The case matters for the bar because it is a compact laboratory on the aggravating and qualifying circumstances: which ones must be proven with cold precision, which ones collapse on the evidence, and how the penalty is built once the qualifying circumstance is fixed.

Procedural History

Pedro Mil was charged before the Court of First Instance of Samar with murder for the death of Augusto Arteche, murder for the death of Pedro Arteche, frustrated murder for the shooting of Salvador Alba, and illegal possession of firearm. After trial, the court found him guilty of frustrated murder and illegal possession of firearm, and of murder in both killing cases, sentencing him to death in each murder case and ordering him to pay an indemnity of six thousand pesos and moral damages of fifteen thousand pesos to each set of heirs. The murder cases came to the Supreme Court on mandatory review because of the death sentence. On appeal, counsel de oficio did not question the findings of guilt; he questioned only the propriety of the death penalty in each murder case.

Facts

On the twenty-second of December, nineteen hundred sixty-six, Pedro Mil boxed Augusto Arteche, a piano player, at a nightspot in Catbalogan, Samar, causing physical injuries. Mil was charged with less serious physical injuries and, being a Constabulary enlisted man stationed at Camp Lukban, was placed under technical arrest in the custody of his commanding officer. Augusto Arteche was in turn charged with direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority. Almost every night thereafter, Augusto Arteche and his family were harassed by Mil and his companions. Fearing for his life, Augusto sought security assistance from the President and from the municipal mayor, and a policeman was detailed to guard their house, but the policeman stayed only three nights. Efforts were made to settle the cases amicably, and the Vice-Mayor of Catbalogan wrote his cousin Augusto a letter asking for a settlement as a personal favor; that letter was entrusted to Sergeant Pedro Arteche for delivery.

At about six o'clock in the evening of the twelfth of February, nineteen hundred sixty-seven, Augusto Arteche and friends were drinking at a refreshment parlor when Mil and Sergeant and Mrs. Anicio Laparra entered and took a nearby table. Augusto pointed out his enemies and was cautioned to be careful. Sergeant Laparra invited Augusto to their table, Augusto accepted a bottle of beer, and they talked. Suddenly Mil shouted that they should fight and that Augusto had to die, and drew a forty-five caliber pistol from under his belt. Augusto stood up, raised his hands, and pleaded for his life. Mil shot him anyway, and as Augusto fell face downwards, Mil stepped toward the body and fired two more shots at his back, exclaiming that this was the killer of Leyte. He kicked the fallen body, then turned on the sleeping Salvador Alba and shot him as well. Augusto died a few minutes after reaching the provincial hospital.

At about seven o'clock that same evening, Sergeant Pedro Arteche and his wife were seated by the window of their house about half a kilometer from the camp when Mil arrived on a motorized tricycle and asked about the letter. When Pedro Arteche admitted he had not delivered it, Mil shot him. When Trinidad Arteche asked why her husband was shot, Mil pointed the gun at her and squeezed the trigger, but the gun did not fire. Mil ran to the waiting tricycle and returned to camp, where he surrendered to his commanding officer. Pedro Arteche was operated on but died two days later.

Issues

• Whether or not the killing of Augusto Arteche was attended by evident premeditation.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the killing of Augusto Arteche to murder.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and of outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse of the deceased attended the killing of Augusto Arteche.
• Whether or not the killing of Pedro Arteche was attended by the aggravating circumstances of use of a motor vehicle and of insult or disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank.
• Whether or not the accused should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation in the killing of Pedro Arteche.
• Whether or not the death penalty was properly imposed in each murder case.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14, paragraph 20 of the Revised Penal Code, on the use of motor vehicle, provides:

That the crime be committed by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means.

The Court reads this to require that the vehicle be used by means thereof, so that the circumstance attaches only when the vehicle was purposely used to facilitate the crime or was indispensable to it.

Ruling

On evident premeditation, the Court held it was not present. Premeditation must be clearly proven as the criminal act itself, and the evidence must show when the intent was engendered, the motive, and the means selected beforehand, showing a cold and deep meditation and tenacious persistence. The threats testified to by the wife of the deceased were not enough, not having been followed by acts revealing firm persistence. The meeting at the refreshment parlor was casual; Mil did not go there to kill, and if he had planned the killing he would have shot on sight. He even offered the victim a bottle of beer.

On treachery, the Court held it was present, because the accused fired at the victim who, with hands upraised, was pleading that his life be spared. Treachery therefore qualified the crime to murder.

On cruelty, the Court held it was not present. The kicking of the body and the placing of a foot on it were done to verify whether the victim was still alive, not to deliberately and inhumanly increase his sufferings. For the same reason, and because it was not alleged in the information, outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse could not be considered. The crime was therefore murder qualified by treachery, attended by the sole aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position, offset by voluntary surrender, and the correct penalty was reclusion perpetua.

On the killing of Pedro Arteche, the Court affirmed that it was murder qualified by treachery, the attack being sudden and unexpected against a defenseless man, attended by dwelling and by taking advantage of public position. But the Court rejected the use of a motor vehicle, because the primary purpose of riding the tricycle was to return to camp, and it was merely incidental that he passed the victim's house. The Court also rejected insult or disregard of rank, because that circumstance requires a difference in social condition, and here both were non-commissioned officers, with no evidence of a deliberate intent to insult.

On passion and obfuscation, the Court credited the accused. The failure of Pedro Arteche to deliver the letter was a prior, unjust and improper act sufficient to produce great excitement and passion as to confuse his reason, since the accused had pinned his hopes of amicable settlement on that letter.

Doctrine

• Evident premeditation requires proof of when the criminal intent was conceived, the motive, and the means chosen beforehand, showing cold and deep meditation and tenacious persistence; prior threats alone do not suffice.
• Treachery is present when the attack is sudden and unexpected and the victim is in no position to defend himself, as where he is shot with hands raised in plea.
• Cruelty requires a deliberate intent to inhumanly increase the victim's sufferings; acts done to verify whether the victim is alive do not qualify.
• Use of a motor vehicle aggravates only when the vehicle was purposely used to facilitate the crime or was indispensable to it.
• Insult or disregard of rank requires a difference in social condition and a deliberate intent to insult.
• Passion and obfuscation requires a prior, unjust and improper act producing powerful excitement that overcomes reason.

Disposition

The trial court's decision was modified: Pedro Mil was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each murder case and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Augusto Arteche and the heirs of Pedro Arteche in the sum of twelve thousand pesos each, with the decision affirmed in all other respects.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that premeditation must be as clearly proven as the crime itself, and that treachery is the qualifier that survives even when premeditation fails. Examiners use this case to test the fine line between cruelty and acts done to check if the victim is alive, and the requirement that a motor vehicle be purposely used to facilitate the crime.