PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RICSON PARRENO Y ATIDO AND DELBERT QUINDO Y PLACENCIA, APPELLANTS.

Parreno versus People

The Case

This is a criminal appeal by Ricson Parreno and Delbert Quindo against the People of the Philippines, from a judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City convicting them of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. The victim, Anthony Cruz, was stabbed in the back at around midnight while he and his friends were walking home from buying food. The case matters for the bar because it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of eyewitnesses, and of how conspiracy and abuse of superior strength are established when a group corners and surrounds an unarmed victim.

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed against the appellants before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 156, which, after trial, rendered a decision finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as indemnity, 25,000 pesos as actual damages, and the costs of suit. The appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal, assigning as errors the appreciation of abuse of superior strength and treachery, the finding of bloodstains on Parreno's clothing, and the sufficiency of their identification.

Facts

At around half past midnight on the second of November, 1997, Anthony Cruz and four friends, among them Simplicio Genova, Junior and Frederick Sabangan, were walking in front of the Rizal High School along Katarungan Street in Pasig City to buy food. On the other side of the street stood a group of six men, with the appellants Parreno and Quindo in front. Quindo challenged them to a fight. One of the men held a slingshot. Anthony told his companions to let it go, and Simplicio said they would not fight. The friends turned and walked away, but when two men began running after them, they ran.

Anthony and Simplicio ran ahead toward an alley. Anthony then noticed that two of their companions had been left behind, and he told the others to go back for them. As Anthony went a little further ahead, four persons suddenly appeared from the Rizal High School and surrounded him. Three of them ran back toward the school, leaving three men upon Anthony: Parreno in a white shirt, Quindo in a blue shirt, and a third man in a red jacket. The three circled the victim. While Anthony faced the man in the red jacket, Parreno, standing behind him, suddenly stabbed him in the back. The three fled toward the school.

Simplicio, about ten meters away, saw the stabbing but in his shock could not identify the weapon. Frederick later saw the wounded Anthony approach them and murmur that he had been hit. The friends rushed him to the hospital, but he died shortly after being wheeled into the emergency room. The autopsy showed a single stab wound in the left lumbar region, about ten centimeters deep, which pierced both lobes of the left lung. The police invited four men found inside the school campus for questioning, and at a confrontation Simplicio pointed to the appellants as the culprits. The appellants pleaded not guilty and denied the charge, Quindo claiming he was asleep when the police arrived and that he was punched at the station by Frederick Sabangan.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the presence of treachery.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in pronouncing that the stains found on Parreno's clothing when the police came were bloodstains.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in sustaining the identification of the accused during the commission of the offense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the appellants were charged and convicted, provides:

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 perpetua 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.

The qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength are what raise the killing from homicide to murder and fix the penalty at reclusion perpetua to death.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that abuse of superior strength was present. The appellants and their companion deliberately used their combined strength to corner and surround an unarmed victim who was not ready to defend himself. Even before the fatal attack, their design to finish off their foe was obvious. While only Parreno delivered the fatal blow, Quindo and the man in the red jacket made sure the victim could not escape nor slip out of the small imaginary circle they created as they milled around him.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. The victim was stabbed from behind, suddenly and without warning, while he faced another man. The attack was deliberate and unexpected, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. The appellants' claim that the victim was forewarned because the group had been seen with a slingshot does not negate treachery, for the victim was in fact retreating and was set upon from behind.

On the third issue, the Court found no reversible error in the trial court's appreciation of the evidence, including the stains on Parreno's clothing, since the conviction rested not on the stains but on the positive identification of the eyewitnesses.

On the fourth issue, the Court sustained the identification. The findings of fact and the assessment of the credibility of witnesses are best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed the deportment of witnesses on the stand. The trial court found that the street was clear and illuminated by a light from an electric post, that the eyewitnesses recognized the two who stood out from the group and challenged them to a fight, and that they spontaneously and credibly described the manner and details of the offense. The accused did not attribute any evil motive to their accusers. The Court found no cogent reason to reverse these findings.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in convicting the appellants, as their guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

First, the findings of fact and the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court are accorded finality on appeal, absent some fact or circumstance of weight that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated which, if properly considered, would alter the result. Second, abuse of superior strength is appreciated where the assailants deliberately use their combined force to corner and surround an unarmed victim, even if only one of them delivers the fatal blow, because conspiracy makes the act of one the act of all. Third, treachery is present where the victim is stabbed suddenly from behind, without warning, while facing another, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the attacker. These circumstances qualify the killing as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of both appellants for murder, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity and actual damages.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the trial court's findings on credibility are binding on appeal absent a fact of weight it overlooked, and a sudden stab from behind while the victim is surrounded is treachery and abuse of superior strength. Examiners use this case to test the finality of factual findings and the appreciation of qualifying circumstances in murder.