THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERNARDO DAROY @ DATDO, GUILLERMO VILLAFANIA, JR. @ JR., GREGORIO VILLAFANIA @ GREG, BERNARDO CALACSAN @ MIKE AND ROGER JA…

People versus Daroy

The Case

This is People versus Daroy, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Bernardo Daroy and four companions for the killing of Philip Angelito, Sr., a policeman, in the evening of January 28, 1993, in barangay Tuliao, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan. The case matters for the Bar because it gathers in one decision the classic rules on credibility of witnesses, conspiracy inferred from the mode and manner of the attack, treachery through rendering the victim defenseless, and the computation of damages for loss of earning capacity.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44, after trial, rendered its decision on December 15, 1994, finding Bernardo Daroy, Guillermo Villafania, Jr., Gregorio Villafania, Bernardo Calacsan and Roger Javillonar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as indemnity and 21,000 pesos as actual damages. Their co-accused Felipe Villafania was acquitted on reasonable doubt. The five convicted accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's reliance on the prosecution witnesses and its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

On the evening of January 28, 1993, the victim was inside his house with his wife Virginia and their children when voices from outside called out to him. He went out and proceeded to the place where he was attacked. His wife and two sons, Philips, Jr., aged thirteen, and Philvin, aged sixteen, followed and witnessed the incident from a distance of about seven to nine meters, the scene illumined by a flashlight carried by Virginia.

According to the prosecution eyewitnesses, the accused ganged up on the victim. Felipe Villafania first struck him with a bamboo pole, causing him to fall. Bernardo Calacsan held his left hand and Roger Javillonar held his right hand, while Bernardo Daroy, Gregorio Villafania and Guillermo Villafania, Jr. stabbed him repeatedly. The autopsy showed six stab wounds and several lacerations; the victim died of cardio respiratory arrest, secondary to hypovolemic shock, secondary to multiple stab wounds.

In their defense, the accused claimed denial and alibi, except Guillermo Villafania, Jr., who admitted killing the victim but invoked self-defense, saying the victim boxed him and drew an ice pick. The trial court rejected these defenses, found the prosecution witnesses credible, and convicted the five. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but corrected the aggravating circumstances and increased the damages.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established among the accused.
• Whether or not treachery attended the killing, qualifying it as murder rather than homicide.
• Whether or not nighttime may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Whether or not the heirs are entitled to moral damages and indemnity for loss of earning capacity.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as cited in the information, 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 provision bears on the case because the killing was qualified as murder by treachery, the victim's hands being held while he was stabbed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's assessment of credibility is accorded great weight, absent any showing that it overlooked material facts or gravely abused its discretion. The eyewitnesses, who were neighbors of the accused, positively identified them, and no improper motive was shown. Minor inconsistencies on the weapons used did not destroy their credibility, as the medico-legal officer testified the stab wounds could have been caused by an ice pick or a small bolo.

On conspiracy, the Court held that direct proof of a previous agreement is not necessary; it may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated. Here, all the accused acted in concert, each doing his part, and although only three stabbed the victim, the act of the three is deemed the act of all.

On treachery, the Court held that the accused employed a mode of attack deliberately designed to insure the victim's death without risk to themselves. His hands were both held while the three others stabbed him, rendering him defenseless and helpless. The killing was therefore murder.

On nighttime, the Court held that the trial court erred in appreciating it, because it was not alleged in the information and did not appear to have been purposely sought.

On damages, the Court affirmed the 50,000 pesos civil indemnity and 21,000 pesos actual damages, and additionally awarded 50,000 pesos moral damages and 672,000 pesos for loss of earning capacity, computed from the victim's age of forty and monthly income of 4,200 pesos.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is binding on appeal absent grave abuse of discretion. Second, conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, and the act of one is the act of all. Third, treachery exists when the mode of attack is deliberately designed to insure the victim's death without risk to the assailant, as when the victim's hands are held while others stab him. Fourth, an aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information cannot be appreciated. Fifth, moral damages and indemnity for loss of earning capacity may be awarded even without documentary proof, based on the surviving spouse's testimony.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the five accused with modification, ordering them to pay the heirs 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 21,000 pesos as actual damages, 672,000 pesos for loss of earnings, and 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: when the victim's hands are held while others stab him, treachery is present because the mode of attack was deliberately designed to insure death without risk. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy inferred from concerted acts and the computation of loss of earning capacity.