G.R. No. L-32702. August 06, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DAVID ABEJUELA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. RAMON ABEJUELA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
MANDATORY REVIEW of the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Bukidnon in Criminal Case No. 2076, entitled: “The People of the Philippines,
plaintiff, versus David Abejuela, et al.,
defendants,” the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
DAVID ABEJUELA and RAMON ABEJUELA
both GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, contrary to and in
violation of Article 248 in relation to Article 14, paragraph 9 of the Revised
Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstances
of recidivism which is nevertheless offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender as far as David Abejuela is
concerned, and said Ramon Abejuela is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of DEATH and David Abejuela to be
imprisoned for LIFE, both to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Blas Pacete in the sum of
P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs.
“The accused David Abejuela shall,
however, be credited with one-half the period the preventive confinement he
has undergone.”
David Abejuela
did not appeal therefrom so that the decision is
final as to him.
The record shows that in the
evening of November 6, 1968,
a benefit dance was held in the cockpit at Barrio Sinabuagan,
Valencia, Bukidnon, under the auspices of the barrio council of Lumbayao, Valencia,
Bukidnon, headed by Barrio Captain Melanio Laindag. Blas Pacete, a rural policeman, was present to maintain peace and order.[1] The dance started at about 9:00 o’clock and was attended by about 80 persons.[2] Among those present were David Abejuela and Petronilo
Lozano who came together.[3]
After the “special piece” given in the honor of David Abejuela, Petronilo Lozano, and
other persons, an intermission for refreshments was called, during which the
sale of the flower boxes would be conducted.
At this juncture, Blas Pacete
left the dance hall to answer the call of nature. While he was urinating at the foot of a
“dinog” tree near the gate of the cockpit,
Ramon Abejuela and Angel Agbayani
arrived, riding on a carabao. Ramon Abejuela told
Angel Agbayani to tie the carabao
to the “dinog” tree. Upon seeing the carabao
tethered to the “dinog” tree, Blas Pacete told Angel to remove
the carabao, saying that it is near the gate of the
cockpit and the people might be gored by the carabao.[4]
David Abejuela came out and told Blas
Pacete that the carabao is
his, and Blas countered: “So, that is yours,” and Pacete returned to the dance hall. But, David Abejuela
held him by the hand and pulled Pacete towards him,
saying: “Are you the tough person
here?”[5]
Pacete held on to a post, with his other hand. At this juncture, Ramon Abejuela
shot Pacete from behind with a “paltik” pistol using a “de veinte”
shotgun shell for ammunition, hitting Pacete’s left
leg.[6]
David Abejuela then pushed Pacete who fell, exclaiming: “Agoy,
help.” David Abejuela pulled out a similar
pistol and shot Pacete. Pacete, however,
was not hit as he rolled away.[7] As
the people scampered for safety, Petronilo Lozano
entered the arena and fired at the people indiscriminately. His shot hit Elpidio
Capio. Juanito Mensalbas saw his
brother-in-law hit and pulled Elpidio Capio towards a post.
Upon seeing Mensalbas dragging Capio, David Abejuela fired at
him, but hit instead, Petronilo Lozano at the back
who shouted: “Agoy,
why is it that you shot me?” David Abejuela went
to Lozano and mollified him,[8] and then they fled from the dance hall and
hid in the mill of one Mr. Caluya, where they found
Ramon Abejuela and Angel Agbayani
also hiding thereat.[9]
After the shooting stopped, Conrado Nabaja, Serafin Verde and others
came out of their hiding places and helped Blas Pacete. They put a
tourniquet around his left leg above the knee to stanch the flow of blood and
brought him to the house of Ananias Pacete where his wound was washed with soap and warm
water. Blas Pacete was also given a penicillin tablet. The next day, he was brought to the Bukidnon Provincial
Hospital where he was examined and his wound treated.[10] On December 6, 1968, however, Blas Pacete died due to his injuries. A medical certificate[11] was issued, stating, in part, as follows:
“FINDINGS:
1. Multiple Gunshot wounds:
POEn: Popliteal region,
about 4 inches in length.
POEx: Anterior tibia with maceration of skin,
muscles and protusion of the tibia, about 6 inches in
length.
2. Compound fracture of the tibia, fibula, leg,
left.
Patient died on December
6, 1968 at 12:30 A.M. for
Shock Irreversible due
to Hemorrhage external due to Compound fracture, left leg, secondary to Gunshot wound.”
As a result, an information was filed
against David Abejuela and Ramon Abejuela
charging them with the crime of Murder committed, as follows:
“That on or about the 6th day of November 1968, in the
evening, at barrio Sinabuagan, municipality of
Valencia, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to kill, conspiring together and mutually helping one another and by
means of treachery and evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength,
with the use of firearms with which they were conveniently provided, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally fired
and shot one Blas Pacete,
inflicting on the person of the latter the following wounds, to wit:
“1. Multiple Gunshot wounds:
POEn: Popliteal region,
about 4 inches in length.
POEX: Anterior tibia, with maceration of the skin,
muscles and protusion of the tibia, about 6 inches in
length.
“2. Compound Fracture of the Tibia, fibula, leg,
left.
which caused the
death of the offended party.
Both accused are recidivist having been previously
convicted by final judgment, of the crime of Serious Physical Injuries in
Criminal Case No. 949, on July 5, 1962,
by the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon.”[12]
Ramon Abejuela denied having shot Blas Pacete. He stated that he arrived at the cockpit of Sinabuagan at about 10:00
o’clock in the evening, together with Angel Agbayani,
riding on a carabao.
He was met by his brother David Abejuela
outside the cockpit.[13]
While they were talking, he heard Angel call that their carabao
was kicked by a man. David went to Angel
and talked with the person who kicked the carabao,
later identified as Blas Pacete. Although he was worried about the carabao that was kicked by Pacete,
he did not move from where he was standing.
He could not hear the conversation.
Not long thereafter, he saw David grappling with Pacete
near the gate of the cockpit. He demonstrated
by holding the court interpreter, representing Blas Pacete, “with his left hand holding the right hand of Blas Pacete near the elbow and
his right hand holding Blas Pacete
at the left wrist and pulling said Blas Pacete.” Then, he heard an explosion which he believed
came from his brother. Because of worry
and fear, he ran away with Angel Agbayani towards the
road going to Valencia. While running, he heard gunshots coming from
the direction of the cockpit. They hid
in the mill of one Mr. Caluya and not long thereafter,
David and Petronilo Lozano arrived. The following morning they went to Valencia.[14]
David Abejuela claimed that it was he
who shot Blas Pacete. He declared that he arrived at the dance hall
at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening
and just watched the dancers. At about 10:00 o’clock, his elder brother, Ramon Abejuela, and Angel Agbayani
arrived, riding on a carabao. He
went outside the dance hall to meet his brother. Angel Agbayani
tethered the carabao to a “dinog”
tree and saw a person kick the carabao. Angel reported the incident to him,
saying: “What is this Nong, our carabao was
kicked?” He immediately confronted that person and asked him why he kicked
his carabao when it was tied to a “dinog” tree and there was nothing which may be
destroyed by it. The man, later
identified as Blas Pacete,
did not answer, and just mumbled: “Linte, linte, why did you tie
your carabao on this dinog
tree where there are plants that are destroyed.” He looked around and saw
no plants, but only cogon grasses. Then,
Pacete “held me and tried to pull me inside the
cockpit and because I did not know him I was worried and so I tried my best to
get free and then I pushed him. And then
I saw him get something from his waist which was surely a weapon.” He
immediately pulled out his “de veinte”
“paltik” pistol and shot Pacete and then sought cover behind the “dinog” tree. He
heard several shots fired, about twenty, after which he noticed his companion, Petronilo Lozano, moaning, saying that he was shot. So, he brought Lozano to the mill of one Mr. Caluya, where he found Ramon and Angel Agbayani. The next morning, they went to Valencia
to file a complaint against Blas Pacete
and others. He denied that his brother
Ramon Abejuela shot Blas Pacete while he and Pacete were
grappling near the gate of the cockpit because if it were so, he would have also sustained some gunshot
wounds since “this 20 gauge firearm uses the ammunition of a shotgun and
it has many pellets. Besides, I have not
noticed him carry a firearm and I have no knowledge if he has any firearm.“[15]
The trial court, however,
did not believe the defendants, saying:
“A careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence presented
by the state leads the court to the conclusion that both of the accused are
responsible criminally for the killing of the victim Blas
Pacete. The
circumstances surrounding the crime show that they cooperated with each other
in the aggression which was unprovoked.
David Abejuela cooperated in the execution of
the crime not only by provoking the deceased whom he tried to drag outside the
cockpit, but also by shooting him with his own gun after said victim was
felled by the shot of Ramon and missed only because the deceased rolled on the
ground. The shooting of the victim from
behind by the accused Ramon Abejuela as he was
resisting the effort of the other accused David Abejuela
to drag him outside the cockpit was clearly characterized by treachery. The position of his wound which entered
behind his left knee-cap and went out in front leaves no room for doubt that
the deceased was shot from the rear.
This circumstance demolishes completely David Abejuela’s
claim of shooting him in self-defense as they confronted each other. Ramon Abejuela’s
mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the witnesses for
the prosecution who saw him deliver the fatal shot at the victim. The testimonies
of Angel Agbayani and Melanio
Laindag in support of the theory of the defense
cannot be given credence because both of them appeared clearly biased especially
Laindag who gave an entirely different version of the
incident in his sworn statement to the municipal judge of Valencia when he was
investigated on Dec. 19, 1968.
“The killing that was qualified by treachery is aggravated by
recidivism on the part of the accused who were both
sentenced by this Court of the crime of Serious Physical Injuries on July 5, 1962 and have already served
their sentence. David Abejuela’s voluntary surrender entitles him to a
mitigation of his offense.”
Ramon Abejuela insists that David Abejuela alone is accountable for the death of Blas Pacete and assails the trial
court for believing the witnesses for the prosecution. The appellant more particularly impugns the
testimony of Juanito Mensalbas
and Conrado Nabaja as unworthy
of credence, the former because of his relationship with the deceased and his
inconsistent statement, and the latter for the contradictions in his testimony.
This Court has continually ruled that the matter of assigning
values to the testimony of witnesses is best performed by trial judges because
they, unlike appellate judges, can weigh such testimony in the light of the
demeanor, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses at the trial, and their
findings of fact may not be overturned unless there is a showing that in making
the factual findings, the trial court had overlooked or failed to consider
certain facts of weight and importance that could have materially affected the conclusion reached in the case.[16] The fact that Juanito
Mensalbas is related to the deceased does not
disqualify him from testifying; nor does it render his testimony utterly
devoid of belief, in the absence of an improper motive actuating him to testify
falsely against the accused. The
contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses, pointed
out by the appellant, refer to minor details and are not of such magnitude and
character as to lead one to believe that these witnesses were coached or
tutored.
Besides, the claim that David Abejuela
alone is responsible for the death of Blas Pacete and that Ramon Abejuela
did not participate in the commission of the crime is not consistent with the
truth and the physical facts of the case.
Conrado Nabaja, Juanito Mensalbas and Esequio Taghap categorically
declared that Ramon Abejuela shot Blas
Pacete from behind while David Abejuela
was holding Pacete by the arm and Pacete
was holding on to a post with his other hand.
Moreover, the nature of the gunshot wound sustained by the deceased,
which had its point of entry at the back of the knee cap and its point of exit
at the front of the leg, fracturing the leg bones, with maceration of the skin,
muscles, and protrusion of the tibia, belies the claim of David Abejuela that he shot Blas Pacete, in self-defense, while they were facing each other.
The appellant also claims that the trial court erred in
appreciating treachery as an aggravating circumstance. The contention is without merit. Treachery was considered in this case as the
qualifying circumstance and is evident from the fact that Blas
Pacete was shot from behind by Ramon Abejuela while David Abejuela was
holding Pacete’s arm, pulling Pacete
towards him, and Pacete was holding on to a post with
his other hand. Blas
Pacete was unarmed and the attack was sudden and
unexpected and there was no risk at all to the assailant.
The appellant claims that there is no conspiracy and evident
premeditation in the commission of the crime.
The unity of purpose and community of design is apparent from the fact
that Ramon Abejuela shot Blas
Pacete while David Abejuela
was holding Pacete’s arm; that David Abejuela also shot Blas Pacete when the latter fell after being shot by Ramon Abejuela; and that they fled from the scene of the crime
and hid in the mill of one Mr. Caluya and went together
to Valencia the following morning to file a complaint against Blas Pacete and others. But, We agree with the appellant that there
was no evident premeditation
because their meeting with Blas Pacete was not sought after and no sufficient period of time intervened between the time the killing was
conceived, up to the time of its
perpetration for the accused to have made a cool and circumspect deliberation of the consequences of
their intended act.
The appellant further contends that the lower court erred in not
appreciating the negligence of the doctor of the Bukidnon Hospital which helped in the early death of the victim. The contention
is without merit. The general rule is
that “he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is,
calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of
death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment.”[17]
The gravity of the wound inflicted is apparent from the fact that the leg bones were fractured and the
skin and muscles macerated, and necessitated
amputation of the leg.
Finally, the appellant claims that the lower court did not take
cognizance of the caliber of the guns used by Ramon and David Abejuela in the shooting incident. The appellant argues, thusly:
“On pages 69, 89, 90 of the notes, during the direct and
cross-examination of Juanito Mensalbas,
witness for the prosecution, the latter testified the gun used in the shooting
was a ‘de viente‘ – caliber-gun using the bullet of a
shotgun which is of the pellet type. If
Ramon shot Blas Pacete
while the latter was grappling with David Abejuela,
the distance being only ‘about one meter, p. 69’, David could have suffered
gunshot wounds too. But, if the shot
that inflicted the wounds was made by David, ‘David Abejuela
used that pistol of his in shooting Blas Pacete but Blas Pacete was able to avoid that, p. 69′, it is natural that
the pellet would not spread due to the closeness of the actor and the
victim. This latter assumption would
tally with the confession of David Abejuela that he
shot the victim, p. 177 of the notes.”[18]
The caliber of the guns used in the shooting and wounding of the
victim which resulted in his ultimate death is
immaterial in view of the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses that
Ramon Abejuela shot Blas Pacete. Besides, the
appellant did not present a ballistics expert to sustain his claim that with
the type of ammunition he used in shooting Blas Pacete, which incidentally shattered the leg bones, thus
precluding a finding that the type of shotgun shell used contained only tiny
pellets, David Abejuela, standing about a meter away
from the victim, would have also sustained gunshot wounds.
Counsel for the appellant “advances the theory that had
Ramon Abejuela really shot Blas
Pacete, considering the weapon used, the part of the
body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it was inflicted negated the
crime of ‘Murder’, for Ramon showed no
intent to kill Blas Pacete.”[19]
Indeed, the circumstances of the case show that Ramon Abejuela did not intend to kill Blas
Pacete since the shot was directed towards the calf
of the leg and not towards a vital part of the body. However, he is responsible for the
consequences of his act, which is, the death of Blas Pacete. If he had
not assaulted Blas Pacete
in a treacherous manner, he would have been found guilty of homicide. But, since the act was committed with
treachery, the defendant, although he did not intend to kill the deceased, is
guilty of murder because of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[20]
The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed may only be
considered as a mitigating
circumstance.[21]
The trial court, therefore, correctly found the accused Ramon Abejuela guilty of the crime of Murder, qualified by
treachery, and attended by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. But, the court erred in imposing the death
penalty upon the said accused in view of the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
which would offset the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Under the circumstances, reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty to be imposed upon
the accused Ramon Abejuela.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby
affirmed, with the modification that the accused Ramon Abejuela
should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. With costs against the
accused Ramon Abejuela in this instance.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ.,
concur.
Antonio, J., took no part being the Solicitor General at the time.
Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., no part.
[1]
t.s.n.,
pp. 11-13, 24.
[2]
Id., p. 21.
[3]
Id., pp. 13, 32.
[4]
Id., p. 68.
[5]
Id., p. 79.
[6]
Id., p. 50.
[7]
Id., p. 69.
[8]
Id., p. 70.
[9]
Id., pp. 167-168; 202.
[10]
Id., pp. 16-18.
[11]
Exhibit A, p. 11, Orig. Record.
[12]
p. 38, Original
Record.
[13]
t.s.n., p. 188.
[14]
Id., pp. 189, 192, 193, 195, 202.
[15]
Id., pp. 175-181.
[16]
People vs. Sales, L-29340, April
27, 1972, 44 SCRA 489, and cases cited therein.
[17]
People vs. Moldes, 61 Phil. 1, 3.
[18]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 11.
[19]
Id., p. 5.
[20]
People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524.
[21]
Art. 13, No. 3, Revised Penal Code.