THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLOS ALETA AND BENJAMIN ENCARNACION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Aleta versus Encarnacion

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Carlos Aleta and Benjamin Encarnacion, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. Two men were charged with the killing of Zacarias Tottoc, a hospital disbursing officer, during a card game one December evening. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching case on treachery — how a sudden, unexpected attack, preceded by disarming the victim, qualifies a killing to murder even when the assailant acted on the spur of the moment. Second, it shows how the Supreme Court treats the flight of the accused, the delay in executing affidavits, and the plea of defense of another, when weighed against the categorical testimony of eyewitnesses.

Procedural History

The accused were first charged with homicide by complaint filed in the municipal court, then recharged with murder by an amended complaint after further statements were taken. After preliminary investigation, the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Quirino, where the fiscal filed an information for murder alleging treachery as the qualifying circumstance. After the prosecution rested, the trial court dismissed the case against two other accused, Rodolfo Valdez and Eduardo Lorenzo, for insufficiency of evidence. After the defense presented its evidence, the trial court rendered judgment convicting Aleta and Encarnacion of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to indemnify solidarily the heirs of Tottoc in the sum of 55,000 pesos as compensatory, moral and exemplary damages. Aleta and Encarnacion appealed to the Supreme Court. Encarnacion later wrote to withdraw his appeal, insisting he was innocent and that the withdrawal was not an admission of guilt; the Court nonetheless resolved the case on the merits, giving it preference so that justice could be done to him.

Facts

Between eight and nine in the evening of December 13, 1971, four employees of the provincial auditor's office were taking supper at the Northeastern Nueva Vizcaya Emergency Hospital in Diffun, Quirino. They played a card game called Pepito with a hospital clerk and the municipal secretary. Also present were Zacarias Tottoc, the hospital disbursing officer, and Romeo Peralta, another clerk. Virgilio Bunao, the hospital administrative officer, entered with his wife and four companions, among them Benjamin Encarnacion and Carlos Aleta. Aleta, who had been drinking beer, introduced himself as Councilor Aleta and offered to be banker in a game of Lucky Nine. He lost five games in a row and did not pay the winners. Tottoc, observing that the winners were not being paid, remarked sarcastically, in substance, "What is that? Is that a bet in the cockpit?" or "betting without money." Aleta resented the remark, dropped the cards, and the game ended.

Shortly after, while Tottoc was talking with Bunao and a companion, Aleta approached him from behind and snatched Tottoc's revolver from his left rear pocket, asking, "Did you get angry, friend Karit?" Tottoc turned, stepped forward, and raised his hands as if to retrieve the gun. Before he could do anything, Aleta shot him pointblank in the abdomen from about a meter away. They grappled for the gun, and Aleta fired a second shot. Encarnacion then intervened, took the gun, and stood in a corner. When Tottoc followed to recover it, Encarnacion kicked him, knocking him to the floor, and then shot him twice while he lay there.

Aleta, Encarnacion, Valdez and Lorenzo fled in a jeep toward Santiago, Isabela. On the way to Santiago for medical help, Tottoc told his companions he had been shot by Aleta and Encarnacion, and told his wife he had been shot by Aleta. He died before reaching Santiago. The autopsy showed a grave abdominal wound injuring the liver and intestines, and a wound in the left forearm that aggravated the abdominal wound and contributed to death. The cause of death was internal hemorrhage. Encarnacion also collared Eduardo de la Peña, a hospital employee sent to fetch the doctor, and forced him into the fleeing jeep, preventing medical aid from reaching Tottoc.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution eyewitnesses over the version of the defense.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying it to murder.
• Whether or not Encarnacion acted in defense of Aleta, or is otherwise liable for the killing.
• Whether or not the delay of the eyewitnesses in giving their sworn statements impaired their credibility.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 16, defines treachery as an aggravating circumstance:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the 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 is the provision the Court applies in holding that Aleta's act of first disarming Tottoc and then shooting him with Tottoc's own gun was a method deliberately chosen to insure the killing without risk to himself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court. Aleta's version — that he merely parried Tottoc's gun and it went off — did not explain the grave wounds and could not prevail over the categorical declarations of five prosecution eyewitnesses, all government employees with no motive to prevaricate. A defense witness himself testified that Tottoc was never able to draw his gun, which destroyed the claim that Aleta had to deflect it. The Court also drew on Aleta's flight: if the shooting had been accidental, why flee to Santiago instead of reporting it to the authorities across the street? It found motive in Tottoc's sarcastic remark, which humiliated Aleta, a councilor, and rankled in his mind.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. Aleta invoked the Samonte ruling that there is no treachery in an attack born of momentary impulse. The Court distinguished it: in Samonte the accused fired his own gun at a victim who was also armed, while here Aleta first disarmed Tottoc and then fired at him with Tottoc's gun. Thus, the Court said, Aleta deliberately employed a method of assault which insured the killing without any risk to himself arising from any defense Tottoc could have made. Although Aleta acted on the impetus of the occasion, he acted with malice aforethought.

On the third issue, the Court rejected Encarnacion's plea of defense of Aleta as incredible. What the evidence showed was that, seeing Aleta had failed to immobilize Tottoc, Encarnacion — though he had no personal animus and was moved only by camaraderie — took over and finished Tottoc, knocking him down and shooting him twice as he lay on the floor. His flight, his wound, and his interception of the doctor sent to save Tottoc all showed his desire that Tottoc die.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the twenty-two day delay in executing the eyewitnesses' affidavits did not impair their credibility, because they had to leave Diffun the next day to perform official duties and the investigators simply did not take their statements sooner.

Doctrine

Treachery under Article 14, paragraph 16, of the Revised Penal Code is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. A sudden and unexpected attack may be treacherous where the circumstances render the person attacked unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. Disarming the victim before shooting him with his own weapon is a deliberate method that insures the killing without risk to the assailant, and qualifies the killing to murder even if the assailant acted on the impetus of the occasion, provided he acted with malice aforethought. Flight, and the prevention of medical aid to the victim, are circumstances that betray a guilty mind and negate claims of accident or defense of another.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding Aleta and Encarnacion guilty of murder and sustaining the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the solidary indemnity of 55,000 pesos in favor of the heirs of Tottoc.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing: disarming the victim and then shooting him with his own gun is treachery, because it is a method deliberately chosen to insure the killing without risk to the assailant. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a treacherous sudden attack and a killing born of mere momentary impulse, and to test how flight and the thwarting of medical aid defeat a plea of accident or defense of another.