THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DAVID ABEJUELA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. RAMON ABEJUELA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Abejuela versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against David Abejuela and Ramon Abejuela, a criminal case for murder arising from the shooting of a rural policeman, Blas Pacete, at a benefit dance in a Bukidnon cockpit. David Abejuela did not appeal, so the judgment became final as to him. The case matters because it reached the Supreme Court on mandatory review of a death sentence, and it teaches several examinable rules at once: treachery as a qualifying circumstance, conspiracy inferred from conduct, the effect of lack of intent to kill on the crime and on the penalty, and the rule that unskillful medical treatment does not relieve the aggressor.

Procedural History

The two Abejuela brothers were charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon. After trial, that court rendered judgment finding both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery, aggravated by recidivism, and mitigated as to David Abejuela by voluntary surrender. Ramon Abejuela was sentenced to death; David Abejuela to life imprisonment; and both were ordered to indemnify the heirs of Blas Pacete. David Abejuela did not appeal, so the decision became final as to him. Because the penalty imposed on Ramon Abejuela was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on mandatory review.

Facts

On the evening of November 6, 1968, a benefit dance was held in the cockpit at Barrio Sinabuagan, Valencia, Bukidnon. Blas Pacete, a rural policeman, was present to keep the peace. David Abejuela and Petronilo Lozano came together. During an intermission, Pacete left the dance hall to answer the call of nature and was urinating at the foot of a dinog tree near the gate of the cockpit when Ramon Abejuela and Angel Agbayani arrived on a carabao. Ramon told Angel to tie the carabao to the dinog tree. Seeing this, Pacete asked Angel to remove the carabao, saying it was near the gate and people might be gored.

David Abejuela came out and told Pacete that the carabao was his. Pacete answered, so that is yours, and returned to the dance hall. But David held him by the hand and pulled him, saying, are you the tough person here. Pacete held on to a post with his other hand. At that juncture, Ramon Abejuela shot Pacete from behind with a paltik pistol using a de veinte shotgun shell, hitting Pacete's left leg. David then pushed Pacete, who fell, exclaiming in pain and asking for help. David pulled out a similar pistol and shot Pacete, but missed as Pacete rolled away. As people scampered for safety, Petronilo Lozano fired indiscriminately and hit Elpidio Capio. When Juanito Mensalbas dragged Capio toward a post, David fired at Mensalbas but hit Lozano instead. David mollified Lozano, and the group fled and hid in the mill of a certain Mr. Caluya.

Pacete was brought to the house of Ananias Pacete, where his wound was washed and a tourniquet applied, and the next day he was taken to the Bukidnon Provincial Hospital. On December 6, 1968, however, he died. The medical findings showed multiple gunshot wounds, a compound fracture of the left leg, and death from shock due to external hemorrhage. An information for murder was filed, alleging conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and recidivism, the two accused having been previously convicted of serious physical injuries. Ramon denied shooting Pacete and claimed he ran away upon hearing an explosion. David admitted shooting Pacete but claimed self-defense. The trial court rejected the defense and convicted both.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses, particularly Juanito Mensalbas and Conrado Nabaja.
• Whether or not Ramon Abejuela participated in the killing, or whether David Abejuela alone is accountable.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the killing.
• Whether or not conspiracy and evident premeditation attended the crime.
• Whether or not the negligence of the attending doctor affected the liability of the accused.
• Whether or not the caliber of the firearms used affected the finding of guilt.
• Whether or not Ramon Abejuela, who did not intend to kill, is guilty of murder, and what penalty is proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as invoked in the judgment, defines and penalizes murder:

Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This is the provision under which the killing was qualified, and it fixes the range within which the Court chose the penalty.

Article 14, paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code, also cited in the judgment, defines the aggravating circumstance of recidivism:

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances: 9. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

Both accused had been previously convicted of serious physical injuries, so recidivism was appreciated against them.

Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, cited by the Court in reducing the penalty, provides:

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances: 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

The Court used this mitigating circumstance to offset recidivism and to bring the penalty down from death to reclusion perpetua.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the weighing of testimony is best performed by trial judges, who can observe the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of witnesses, and that their findings may not be overturned absent a showing that they overlooked facts of weight and importance. The relationship of Juanito Mensalbas to the deceased did not disqualify him, absent an improper motive to testify falsely, and the contradictions pointed out were on minor details.

On the second issue, the Court held that the claim that David alone was responsible is belied by the physical facts. Three witnesses categorically declared that Ramon shot Pacete from behind while David held Pacete by the arm and Pacete held on to a post. The nature of the wound, entering at the back of the knee and exiting at the front, belied David's claim of self-defense while facing the victim.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery qualified the killing. Pacete was shot from behind while held by David, he was unarmed, and the attack was sudden and unexpected, with no risk to the assailant.

On the fourth issue, the Court found conspiracy from the unity of purpose and community of design shown by the concerted acts and the common flight. It agreed, however, that there was no evident premeditation, because the meeting with Pacete was not sought and no sufficient time intervened for cool deliberation.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the aggressor is not relieved of responsibility even if the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical treatment, where the wound inflicted was dangerous and calculated to destroy life.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the caliber of the guns was immaterial given the positive testimony of the witnesses, and that the claim was unsupported by any ballistics expert.

On the seventh issue, the Court held that although Ramon directed the shot at the calf and not at a vital part, he is responsible for the consequences of his act. Had the assault not been treacherous, he would have been guilty only of homicide; because it was treacherous, he is guilty of murder, and the lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is only a mitigating circumstance. The Court then held that the trial court erred in imposing death, since this mitigating circumstance offsets recidivism, and reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty.

Doctrine

Treachery qualifies a killing as murder under Article 248 where the attack is sudden and unexpected, the victim is unarmed, and no risk is posed to the assailant, as where the victim is shot from behind while being held by a companion. Conspiracy is inferred from the concerted acts of the accused and their common flight, not from direct proof of agreement. Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, does not change the crime where treachery qualifies it, but it mitigates the penalty and may offset recidivism under Article 14, paragraph 9. Finally, one who inflicts a dangerous wound remains liable for the death even if unskillful medical treatment contributed to it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with the modification that Ramon Abejuela should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: treachery qualifies the killing as murder even without intent to kill, and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong merely mitigates the penalty. Examiners use this case for conspiracy inferred from concerted acts and common flight, and for the rule that unskillful medical treatment does not break the chain of liability.