PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME REYES Y AROGANSIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Reyes

The Case

This is People versus Reyes, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Jaime Reyes for shooting Meynardo Altobar, Jr. one evening in February 1990 in Santa Cruz, Laguna. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact laboratory of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances: it shows how treachery is appreciated, how nocturnity is absorbed, how evident premeditation must be proved, and how the civil liability must be trimmed on appeal.

Procedural History

Reyes was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation in Parañaque pursuant to a warrant issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, and was turned over to the Philippine National Police of that province. He was admitted to bail in May 1990. He failed to submit his counter-affidavit, so he was deemed to have waived his right to preliminary investigation. The Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna then filed an information for murder. At arraignment, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty. During trial his bail was cancelled and a bench warrant was issued for his failure to appear.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, in Santa Cruz, Laguna, rendered judgment on October 5, 1994, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by evident premeditation under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, with nocturnity as a generic aggravating circumstance. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages. He appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning four errors.

Facts

At about seven o'clock in the evening of February 15, 1990, Iluminado Broas and Joel Apundar were seated with the victim, Meynardo Altobar, Jr., known as Jun Boy, in front of a sari-sari store on M.H. del Pilar Street in Santa Cruz, Laguna. A mustachioed man approached and asked, "Ikaw ba si Jun Boy?" When the victim nodded, the man pulled out a gun from what looked like a book pressed under his left armpit and shot him in the neck.

Broas pushed the wounded victim aside before a second shot. The gunman pointed the weapon at the group and pulled the trigger, but the gun jammed. He ran away. Apundar shouted, "Habulin ninyo iyan, habulin ninyo!" Johnny Abao, some thirty meters away, heard two gunshots and the shout, saw a man running, and gave chase until the man boarded a slow-moving tricycle. Manolito Manuel, thrown from his bicycle nearby, saw a man board that tricycle, remove his mask, and place a gun on the passenger seat, then give him an intimidating look. He later identified the passenger as Reyes. The victim was brought to the hospital where he died. The autopsy found a penetrating wound and gave the cause of death as shock due to hemorrhage.

Reyes denied the killing and claimed alibi: that he was at a cockpit in Parañaque, some eighty-five to ninety kilometers away, on a painting job, corroborated by a relative. The prosecution rebutted with two witnesses who placed him in Santa Cruz that afternoon, first at a celebration and later walking along Taleon Street, a few blocks from the scene. The trial court convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not treachery attended the killing of the victim.
• Whether or not evident premeditation was proved to qualify the crime to murder.
• Whether or not nocturnity may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the alibi and denial.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as it stood before its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, 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. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This is the provision under which Reyes was charged and convicted, and it supplies the qualifying circumstances the Court examines one by one.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that treachery was present. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. The question "Ikaw ba si Jun Boy?" could not have warned the victim; it took no more than three seconds to ask and then fire. Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim was unarmed.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with Reyes. The prosecution failed to prove the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he had clung to that determination, and a sufficient interval of time between determination and execution to allow reflection. Mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical, are not enough. Evident premeditation could not qualify the crime, nor even be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

On the third issue, the Court held that nocturnity is ordinarily absorbed in treachery, because it forms part of the treacherous means employed. It is appreciated only when purposely sought or when it affords impunity, which did not appear here, since the place was well lighted and the face of the appellant could be seen through his transparent mask. The clumsy mask and sunglasses did not amount to disguise, which contemplates a superficial but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The delay of the eyewitnesses in naming Reyes was understandable, born of fear of reprisal, and they positively identified him at trial. Alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification by witnesses with no improper motive to testify falsely.

On the civil liability, the Court found the moral damages excessive and the exemplary damages unwarranted, since no aggravating circumstance remained: treachery qualified the killing, nocturnity was absorbed, and evident premeditation was not proved.

Doctrine

Treachery qualifies a killing as murder when the victim was not in a position to defend himself and the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the means of attack. A frontal attack is treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time of determination, an act showing the offender clung to it, and a sufficient interval for reflection, established as clearly as the crime itself. Nocturnity is absorbed in treachery unless purposely sought or shown to afford impunity. Disguise requires an effective dissembling to avoid identification. Alibi and denial cannot overcome positive identification. Exemplary damages lie only where an aggravating circumstance attends the crime.

Disposition

The appealed judgment was affirmed, but the civil liability was modified: Reyes was ordered to pay the heirs fifty thousand pesos as death indemnity, ninety thousand pesos as compensatory damages, fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, and twenty thousand pesos as actual damages for litigation expenses, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the line that nocturnity is absorbed in treachery, and that evident premeditation must be proved as clearly as the crime itself. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between qualifying and aggravating circumstances, and the trimming of damages on appeal.