G.R. No. 105391. February 28, 1994
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENEDICTO CAMPA, MATEO CAMPA, PROCESO CAMPA, JIMMY CAMPA, AND DALMACIO CAMPA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
NARVASA, C.J.:
It would appear that in some men the veneer of civilization is so
thin and fragile the slightest offense will blow it away to expose the savage
underneath. Any affront, imagined or
otherwise, transforms them into “brutish beasts,” seemingly in an
instant; they become so suddenly filled with ungovernable rage that they turn
on their fellow man and put him to death, pitilessly and cruelly.
One such transformation apparently took place at a dance party in
the home of Benedicto Campa, Sr. in Hda. Galispin, Barangay Mansilingan,
Bacolod City, in the evening of January 24, 1984. The party was in celebration of the birthday of Benedicto’s
daughter, Maria Fe; and Benedicto’s yard had been decorated and brightly
illuminated with kerosene torches for dancing by the guests.
To this dance came guests from Hda. Garcia, about a kilometer
away: Josefino Jagocoy, Freddie Mojica,
Ricardo Pagunsan, Jr., Jessie Parcon and Noli Malayang. At about 10 o’clock that night; after
dancing had been going on for about two (2) hours, Josefino Jagocoy asked Mila,
the wife of Dalmacio Campa, for a dance. Mila (a.k.a. Indang) turned
down Josefino’s invitation, saying she was a married woman; but Josefino
allegedly tried to pull her towards the dance area. Mila evidently felt so outraged that, “screaming and
shouting,” she went up to the house of Benedicto Campa, Sr., her
father-in-law.[1]
Some five minutes later, the people at the dance were startled to
see a person — later identified as one Jun Aspan of Hda. Galispin — jump down
from Benedico Campa’s house, pursued by the Campa brothers and Jeorge
Villacampa. The pursuers returned after
a short while and forthwith approached Josefino Jagocoy, who was standing at
one side of Benedicto Campa’s yard, leaning on a bamboo pole.
Without warning, Jeorge Villacampa hit Josefino on the shoulder
with a cane cutter. Josefino fell on
his buttocks and while thus positioned on the ground, was again hacked with the
cane cutter by Villacampa. Dalmacio
Campa then stabbed Josefino twice in the abdomen with a double-bladed copper
knife; and Dalmacio’s brother, Jimmy Campa, also stabbed Josefino with a
stainless steel knife.[2] The
other Campa brothers — Proceso, Mateo and Benedicto, Jr. — surrounded
Josefino and struck out at him with cane cutters.
One of those who had come to the dance with the luckless
Josefino, Freddie Mojica, cried out to the assailants to stop, saying Josefino
was the younger brother of “Tio Badong.” But his outcry only resulted
in his being himself attacked. Jimmy
Campa came at Freddie with a knife thrust which the latter was able to
avoid. Benedicto Campa, Jr. lashed out
at Freddie with a cane cutter, hitting him in the forehead and the right
arm. Freddie Mojica fled towards a
nearby creek and hid in a bamboo clump. His companions, Ricardo Pagunsan, Jr., Jessie Parcon and Noli Malayang,
above named, also took to their heels, scampering away in all directions, like
the other frightened guests.
After this feral outburst, which could not have lasted more than
a few minutes, Josefino Jagocoy was taken to the Bacolod Doctors Hospital. He was attended to at the Emergency Room by
Dr. Roberto L. Garcia. Josefino was
able to speak to the police investigator, Pat. Oscar Flor, to whom he
identified his attackers. Josefino died
the next day, January 25, 1984, after he was operated on in an attempt to save
his life.
The foregoing facts were testified to mainly by prosecution
witnesses at the trial of Benedicto Campa, Mateo Campa, Proceso Campa, Jimmy
Campa, and Dalmacio Campa before the Regional Trial Court at Bacolod City,
Branch 48.[3]
They — together with Jeorge Villacampa, who however was never arrested and
hence, never arraigned — were accused of the murder of Josefino Jagocoy under
an information dated January 30, 1984,[4] and
in respect of which they had in due course entered a plea of not guilty.
On the other hand, the defense sought to establish a different
version of the occurrence. As
summarized by the Trial Court,[5] the
defendants theorized :
”
* * that it was Jeorge Villacampa alone who inflicted the wounds upon
the deceased triggered by the fact that latter forced Mila, also known as
Indang, the wife of Dalmacio Campa, to dance with him. After the deceased had forcibly pulled
Indang’s hand, the former was admonished by Benedicto Campa, Sr. of the fact
that the latter is married. However,
the deceased retorted, ‘So what!’. Thereafter, Villacampa, a hired worker of Benedicto Campa, St., stepped
down from the house and admonished the deceased but the latter flashed his
flashlight on the former’s face and once again retorted, ‘So what!’. It was when the deceased made motions of taking out something from his
hip that accused Villacampa hacked the former with a sugar cane cutter at the
back. The deceased, however, managed to
escape together with his friends Pagunsan and Mojica towards the thicket and
being chased by Villacampa and his companions. The Campa brothers were not with Villacampa at that point in time
though, as they were all inside the house with their wives and children. Thereafter, stones were thrown at the house
of the Campa’s. It was at this moment
when Dalmacio Campa went down from his father’s house after having been
awakened from sleep by the noise. However, testimony of defense witness, Carmela Salanap, varied considering
that she testified that an argument first ensued inside the house. She added that the deceased was not arguing
with the accused Villacampa at the moment of the incident but was about to
dance with an unidentified woman. For
reasons unknown to witness Salanap, accused Villacampa rushed towards the deceased and hacked the
latter. Witness did not see what
occurred next because she ran tohide under the Campa’s house. Only after she went out from her hiding
place had she met the accused Vllacampa who uttered the words, ‘He will not
survive anymore because he will die.’ Defense witness, Benedicto Campa, Sr.,
likewise added that his sons were inside his house when accused Villacampa
first hacked Jagocoy and it was only after, when everything returned to normal
that his sons went put of the house and inquired what happened.”
The Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had
“satisfactorily established with moral certainty the guilt of the accused
in conspiring to kill the deceased Josefino Jagocoy beyond reasonable doubt * *
;”[6] and that, on the other hand,
“testimony of defense witnesses presented conflicting statements that were
unreliable and of doubtful veracity, if not downright incredible.”[7]
It rendered judgment on January 31, 1989, containing the following dispositive
portion, to wit:[8]
“WHEREFORE, from the evidence presented, the Court finds the
accused Benedicto Campa, Jr., Mateo Campa, Proceso Campa, Jimmy Campa and
Dalmacio Campa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
(JeorgeVillacampa being still at large and has never been arraigned) and shall
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment for the death of the victim, with each
accessory penalty provided for in Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code and to
indemnify the heirs of Josefino Jagocoy the sum of Sixteen Thousand Pesos
(P16,000.00) each. Without costs.”
The defendants moved for reconsideration of the condemnatory
judgment, and when this was denied, perfected an appeal therefrom. In their brief, they seek reversal of the
verdict of conviction entered against them (or at least, the reduction of the
penalty imposed) upon the following arguments:[9]
1. The testimony of Freddie Mojica “is at best, shaky,”
“is not in accord with normal or common human habit or tendency;”[10]
the matter “is more akin to death caused in a tumultous (sic)
affray;”[11]
the illumination at the scene of the crime came from “michas,“
** “small kerosene lamps that can hardly illuminate a room, much less
a space where dancing is held;”[12] and
“no motive at all has been established by the prosecution on the part of
the appellants for them to harbor ill-will or a desire to kill the
deceased.”[13]
2. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Roberto Garcia (Exh. E)
enumerating only four stab wounds, belies the evidence given by the prosecution
witnesses.[14]
3. “(N)o evidence was ever presented to substantiate ** (the)
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation;” hence, it was error to
convict the appellants of murder.[15]
4. The fact that stones were thrown at the house of the Campas
warranted the appreciation in favor of the accused of the mitigating
circumstance of passion and/or obfuscation.[16]
5. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should also
have been appreciated in their favor.[17]
A reading of the testimony of Freddie Mojica immediately impels
rejection of its description as “shaky,” or as lacking in credibility. It is moreover corroborated in all substantial aspects by another
prosecution witness, Ricardo Pagunsan, Jr. Both Mojica and Pagunsan positively
identified the assailants, and described their individual acts of violence and
the weapons respectively used by them against the victim.
Freddie Mojica’s testimony is pertinently as follows:[18]
“Q Will
you tell the Honorable Court what was the incident that took place around 10:00
in the evening of January 24, 1984 when you were sitting on the bamboo bench
near the house of the Campas?
A While
I was sitting there at the bamboo bench near the house of the Campas watching
people dancing on the dance floor suddenly there was a commotion. I saw people running because there was a
person who jumped from the house of (the) Campas and was being chased but I do
not know that person.
*** ***
Q And
who were the persons who chased that fellow who jumped from the house of (the)
Campas?
A Jeorge
Villacampa and the five (5) Campa brothers.
Q And
who were these five Campa brothers ***?
A Proceso,
Dalmacio, Mateo, Benedicto and Jimmy.
Q These
five Campa brothers you mentioned (and) are they the same *** Campa(s) who are
now the accused in this case?
A Yes,
Ma’am.
*** ***
Q You
said that the accused here Jeorge Villacampa and the Campa brothers x x x
chased a person which (sic) you saw jumped from the house of Benedicto Campa,
Sr., what happened after that?
A They
later on came back and they approached Josefino Jagocoy who has (sic) his hand
leaning on a bamboo pole (and) was suddenly hacked by them.
Q Who hacked Josefino Hagocoy (sic)?
A It was Jeorge Villacampa.
Q What
happened after Josefino Jagocoy was hit?
A He
suddenly stepped backward.
Q What
happened?
A He
fell on his buttocks and suddenly turned.
Q And
what did he do?
A He
turned and attempted to run.
Q What
happened?
A He
was again hacked by Jeorge Villacampa on the shoulder.
Q What
happened after that?
A After
he was hacked by Jeorge Villacampa Josefino Jagocoy suddenly squatted.
Q Do
you mean to say after he was hit on the shoulder?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
happened after that?
A Dalmacio
also stabbed him.
Q Was
Josefino Jagocoy hit?
A Yes,
sir.
Q How
many times did Dalmacio Campa stab Josefino Jagocoy?
A He
stabbed him twice.
Q Do
you know where or did you see where Josefino Jagocoy was hit the first time he
was stabbed by Dalmacio Campa?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Where?
A He
was hit on the left abdomen.
Q How
about the second time *** ?
A He
was hit on the right abdomen.
Q What
happened after that?
A And
thereafter Jimmy followed.
Q Followed
what?
A And
Jimmy stabbed him on the left shoulder, blade.
Q How
many times did Jimmy Campa stab Josefino Jagocoy?
A He
stabbed him twice.
Q And
Josefino Jagocoy was also hit on the second time by Jimmy Campa?
A Yes,
sir.
Q How
about Proceso, Mateo and Benedicto, Jr. where were they at that time?
A They
were surrounding Josefino Jogocoy.
Q What
did Proceso Campa do?
A Proceso
Campa hacked him.
Q Hacked
who?
A He
hacked Josefino Jagocoy.
Q How about this Mateo Campa, what did he do?
A He
also hacked and throw (sic) stone at him.
Q How about, Benedicto Campa, what did he do?
A He
also hacked.
Q Who?
A Josefino
‘Jagocoy.”
The corroborating part of the testimony of Ricardo Pagunsan, Jr.,[19] is
pertinently as follows:
“Q At
around ten o’clock that evening, of January 24, 1984, you said you were still there
at the house of Benedicto Campa, Sr. Do
you recall any incident that called your attention that took place there?
A Yes,
there was.
“Q Will
you inform this Honorable Court what was that incident ***
A After
the dance there was a man who jumped from the house of Benedicto Campa, Sr. and
he was chased by George (sic) Villacampa followed by the Campa brothers and
they passed by in front of us.
Q Who
were these Campa brothers you mentioned? Please name them.
A Benedicto
Campa, Jr., Mateo Campa, Proceso Campa, Dalmacio Campa, Juaning (sic) Campa and
George Villacampa.
*** ***
Q What
happened after that?
A While
we were. . . I was standing there with Josefino and George Villacampa approached us and hacked us with a bolo *** but
we were not hit.
Q ***
what happened next?
A Josefino
fell on his buttocks and he moved to the sides (sic).
Q What
happened after Josefino fell down on his buttocks?
A While
he was attempting to run away he was downed.
Q Was
Josefino hit when George Villacampa hit (sic) for the second time?
A Yes.
Q Do
you recall where Josefino was hit?
A On
the right shoulder.
Q What
happened after that?
A I
was not able to leave that place anymore. I just remained there.
Q What
happened next?
A After that he was stabbed by Dalmacio Campa
twice on the front portion of his body.
Q ***.
What happened next after that?
A He was stabbed by Jimmy Campa twice also.
Q Was
Josefino Jagocoy (hit) when Jimmy Campa stabbed him twice on the back?
A Yes.
Q After
Jimmy Campa stabbed Josefino Jagocoy twice what happened next?
A He was hacked by Mateo Campa.
Q What
weapon did Mateo Campa use in hacking Josefino Jagocoy?
A A
sugarcane cutter.
Q After
Mateo Campa hacked Josefino Jagocoy with a cane cutter, what happened next?
A He was hacked by Benedicto Campa, Jr.
Q What
weapon did Benedicto Campa, Jr. use in hacking Josefino Jagocoy?
A Sugarcane
cutter.
Q After
Benedicto Campa, Jr. hacked Josefino Jagocoy with a came cutter, what happened
next?
A He
was hacked by Proceso Campa.
Q ***.
what weapon did Proceso Campa used (sic) in hacking Josefino Jogocoy?
A Sugarcane
cutter.
Q What
happened after Proceso Campa hacked Josefino Jagocoy with a cane cutter?
A The(y)
left Josefino Jagocoy”
The foregoing testimonial proofs are wanting neither in certitude
nor specificity, and considering their coherence and concordance, as well as
the absence of proof of bias on the part of the witnesses or other motive to
give false evidence, cannot be ignored, much less denied credence. The accord of full faith and credit to said
proofs by the Trial Court must be sustained.
The manner by which the killing of Josefino was carried out, as
thus described by the witnesses, persuasively demonstrates that the assailants
were all moved by one common purpose: if not precisely to slay Josefino, certainly to inflict serious injuries
on him with the weapons they each had in hand; and in the effectuation of that
purpose, they intended to and did in fact help one another. They came at Josefino together, each with a
weapon; they encircled their victim and they all stabbed him, or hit him with
cane cutters; they did not cease until Josefino had been stabbed and cut, and
lay prostrate, his blood spilling to the ground from several wounds, some
fatal, others superficial. They acted
in conspiracy, each performing specific acts in the killing of Josefino with
such closeness and coordination as unmistakably to indicate a common purpose or
design.[20]
The testimony of Mojica and Pagunsan is not enfeebled by the
claim that the illumination at the scene of the crime was so dim as to render
accurate identification extremely difficult if not impossible. That claim is simply not borne out by the
evidence which, on the contrary tends to establish that the place was well lit
with many kerosene lamps (michas), and that there was, in fact, a
kerosene torch right at the portion of the yard where Freddie Mojica and other
persons were seated.[21]
The identities of the assailants must also be taken as
satisfactorily established. Their
identification by Mojica and Pagunsan cannot be faulted. Not only were they, like the appellants,
long-time residents of Mansilingan, Bacolod City,[22]
their faces would in the very nature of things, also have been forcefully
impinged upon and etched into the witnesses’ memories by the acts of ferocity
perpetrated before their eyes. Moreover, when interviewed shortly before he expired from his mortal
wounds, the victim himself named the Campa brothers and Villacampa as the
persons who had attacked him, to the police investigator, Pat. Oscar Flor.[23]
Appellants would discredit the testimony of Mojica and Pagunsan
by adverting to the medical certificate (Exh. E) issued by Dr. Roberto Garcia,
who conducted the autopsy on the deceased. They argue that since that certificate enumerates only four (4) stab
wounds, it could not be true that the victim was also attacked and wounded with
the cane cutters with which some of the appellants were supposedly armed since
these cutters were capable of inflicting only slashing or cutting injuries, not
stab or puncturing wounds. It should
however be pointed out that Dr. Garcia testified that he had listed in the
medical cerificate only the “major wounds” — the four (4) stab
wounds — but that there were other wounds not listed, “minor” in
nature being mere lacerations.[24] Indeed,
the medical certificate, insofar as it specifies that there were four (4) stab
wounds on the cadaver, is entirely consistent with the testimony of Freddie
Mojica and Ricardo Pagunsan, Jr., both of whom declared on the witness stand
that Dalmacio Campa had stabbed the victim twice, as had his brother, Jimmy
Campa, supra. The
hacking wounds (lacerations) were evidently not deemed “major” by Dr.
Garcia, and were consequently not listed in the medical certificate; the
lacerations obviously were the wounds inflicted by the cane cutters. Moreover, that the victim suffered more
injuries than the four (4) “major” ones listed by Dr. Garcia in the
medical certificate (Exh. E) is also established by the testimony of Pat. Oscar
Flor, of the Homicide Section of the Bacolod Police Force, who deposed that he
had counted “fourteen (14) wounds or injuries sustained by the victim
including lacerations and contusions.”[25]
The defense contends that no reason at all has been established
by the prosecution for the appellants to harbor ill-will or a desire to kill
the deceased. In the first place,
motive is inconsequential where there is otherwise affirmative evidence of the
identity of the malefactors and of their acts or omissions. In the second place, the defense evidence
itself demonstrates the existence of cause for resentment on the appellants’
part. As stressed in the appellee’s
brief:[26]
” * * . Defense witness Renato Bautista testified that when
Indang (the wife of Dalmacio Campa) refused to dance with the victim because
she is already married, she went up the house ‘screaming and shouting’ (p. 35,
TSN, February 29, 1985). This was
corroborated by another defense witness, Carmela Salanap, who stated that the
incident of January 24, 1984 was ‘in connection with a dance’ which resulted in
‘an argument upstairs’ (p. 8, TSN, March 18, 1985).
Benedicto Campa, Sr., father of accused-appellants, also testified
that the incident started when Josefino Jagocoy asked Indang (his
daughter-in-law) for a dance and, when the latter refused, Jagocoy allegedly
pulled her towards the center of the dance hall (pp. 5-6, TSN, June 5, 1985)
This untoward incident between Indang and Jagocoy provided the motive that
precipitated the latter’s killing by Villacampa and the Campa brothers.”
There was a here a physical assault by a group of identified men
against a common, particular victim, and not, as the defense suggests, a
“tumultuous affray” within the meaning of Article 251 of the Revised
Penal Code,[27]
i.e., a melee or free-for-all, where several persons not comprising definite or
identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and disorganized manner,
resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them.
The crime actually proven, however, is not murder but homicide
simply, neither of the two (2) qualifying circumstances alleged in the
information, treachery and evident premeditation, having been adequately
established. As depicted by the proofs,
the attack on Josefino Jagocoy was made overtly, frontally, no effort having
been exerted to employ means, methods and forms in the perpetration of the
killing tending directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to
the offenders arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[28]
Neither do the proofs demonstrate evident premeditation on appellants’ part;
indeed, no finding of its existence has been made by the Court a quo.
The Court however agrees with the appellee that the commission of
the crime was attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of advantage
being taken of superior strength.[29]
“In the instant case, superior strength was taken advantage of
when Villacampa and the five (5) Campa brothers, who were all armed with bladed
weapons, ganged up and attacked Josefino Jagocoy, the victim who was unarmed,
resulting in the latter’s death. In People vs Alitao (194 SCRA 120
[1991]), this Honorable Court held that there was abuse of superior strength
where the evidence showed that the victim was unarmed while he was
simultaneously attacked by the appellants, all of them with weapons.
Since superior strength was not alleged as a qualifying
circumstance in the information, its attendance in the killing incident cannot
qualify the crime to murder. However,
it can be taken as a generic aggravating circumstance to the crime of homicide
(Luis B. Reyes, The revised Penal Code, Rex Printing Company, Inc., Quezon
City, Vol. II, Twelfth Edition, p. 462).”
The mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation, and
voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the appellants, as they
pray. According to them, they were
overcome by passion when stones were hurled at their house by some unidentified
individuals. There is no sufficient
evidence of this stoning incident and even if there were, there is no proof
whatever that the victim was in any way responsible therefor so as to be made
the subject of appellants’ overwhelming rage. Nor is there any indication in the record that appellants had, of their
own volition, come forward and presented themselves before the authorities,
signifying their desire to spare the Government the time, effort and expense of
seeking them out; what happened simply was that they willingly accepted the
invitation of police officers to undergo investigation for the killing of
Josefino Jagocoy.
One last word. The Trial
Court erroneously imposed the penalty of “life imprisonment” for a
felony defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code. Once again the Court wishes to point out
that “life imprisonment” is not the same as the penalty of reclusion
perpetua provided for in the Revised Penal Code for certain specific
offenses, and that “life imprisonment” is not one of the penalties
prescribed by the Code.
WHEREFORE, modifying the judgment of the Court a quo, the
accused-appellants — Benedicto Campa, Mateo Campa, Proceso Campa, Jimmy Campa,
and Dalmacio Campa — are hereby declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
felony of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, with the
attendance of the generic aggravating circumstance of advantage of superior
strength; and they are accordingly each SENTENCED to the indeterminate penalty
of eleven (11) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to nineteen (19)
years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify in solidum the
heirs of Josefino Jagocoy in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00); and
to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Regalado, Nocon, and
Puno, JJ., concur.
[1]
TSN, June 5, 1985, pp. 5-6: testimony
of Benedicto Campa, Sr.; TSN, Feb. 29, 1985, p. 35: testimony of defense witness Renato Bautista; TSN, March 18,
1985, p. 8: testimony of Carmela
Salanap
[2]
TSN, Aug 29, 1984, pp. 12-14
[3]
Rollo, pp. 51-52; 67-69
[4]
Id., pp. 11-12
[5]
Id., pp. 52-53
[6]
Id., p. 54
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id., p. 56
[9]
Culled from their submittals under an assignment of seven (7) errors
[10]
Rollo, pp. 40, 42-45
[11]
Id., pp. 40-41
[12]
Id., p. 41
[13]
Id., p. 42
[14]
Id., pp. 45-46
[15]
Id., pp. 46-47
[16]
Id., pp. 47-48
[17]
Id., pp. 48-49
[18]
TSN, Aug. 29, 1984, pp. 5-11; emphasis supplied
[19]
TSN, Nov. 7, 1984, pp.. 9-18; italics supplied
[20]
Peo. v. Petenia, 143 SCRA 361
(1986); Peo. v. Manalo, 133 SCRA 626 (1984); Peo. v. Dalusag, 133
SCRA 15; Peo. v. Pagaduan, 29 SCRA 54 (1969)
[21]
TSN, Aug. 20, 1984, p. 37; SEE also TSN,
Nov. 21, 1984, pp. 18-19
[22]
TSN, Aug. 29, 1984, p. 3; TSN, Nov. 7,
2988, p. 5
[23]
TSN, Jan. 21, 1986, pp. 10-12
[24]
TSN, Nov. 21, 1984, pp. 30-31
[25]
TSN, Jan. 21, 1985, p. 12
[26]
Rollo, pp. 82-83
[27]
There is a “tumultuous
affray,” according to Article 251, when “several persons, not
composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking
each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and
tumultuous manner.” The penalty prescribed, where it cannot be ascertained
who actually killed the deceased or actually inflicted the injuries, is made
dependent on whether death, or physical injuries result from the affray (Arts.
251 and 252).
[28]
Art. 14 (16), Revised Penal Code
[29]
Rollo, pp. 96-97