PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MATEO GREGORIO Y CARPIO A.K.A. “JHUN TAYO”, ALBERTO GREGORIO Y CARPIO A.K.A. “TONGE” (DECEASED) AND JUANCHO OSORIO Y DELA PAZ, ACCUSED.

People versus Gregorio

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Mateo Gregorio, his brother Alberto Gregorio, and Juancho Osorio for the killing of Juanito Regacho on a night in January 1998 in Taguig. The trial court convicted Mateo and Juancho of murder, and they asked the Supreme Court to reverse. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold onto: it shows how conspiracy and guilt may be proved by circumstantial evidence alone, and it shows the Court stripping away the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength when the actual killing was not witnessed, reducing the crime from murder to homicide.

Procedural History

An amended information for murder was filed against the three accused in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. Each pleaded not guilty on separate dates, and their petition for bail was denied. Alberto Gregorio died while the bail petition was being heard, leaving Mateo and Juancho on trial. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding Mateo and Juancho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay the heirs seventy-five thousand pesos as civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages. Mateo and Juancho appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors that the trial court's findings were contrary to the evidence and that they were wrongly convicted of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Earlier on the day of the killing, Alberto Gregorio and the victim had a heated altercation after coming from a mahjong session. A witness heard Alberto challenge the victim with the words, if you want, let us finish this now. That evening, at about ten forty in the evening, the victim was standing in front of a store on Kalayaan Street in Ususan, Taguig, while his wife asked him to come inside their house a few meters away.

Moments later a tricycle pulled up and Juancho Osorio alighted. He drew a gun and fired at the victim, but the victim parried his hand and ran toward the alley leading to his house. Juancho pointed the gun at the bystanders, who scampered behind a parked jeepney. Mateo Gregorio then came out of a nearby alley, fired his gun in the air, approached Juancho, and asked, where is he now. The two followed the victim into the alley, gunshots were heard, and the two came out still holding their guns and fled.

The victim died in front of the door of his house. The post-mortem examination showed four gunshot wounds, with the wounds to the liver and lung being fatal. The accused denied participation. Mateo admitted firing a gun in the air but claimed he was only on his way home with a pawned gun. Juancho claimed he was at the barangay fiesta until the early morning and did not even know how to use a gun.

Issues

• Whether or not the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not conspiracy among the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the killing, raising it from homicide to murder.
• Whether or not the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules on Evidence, on circumstantial evidence, provides:

Section 5. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the test the Court applied to uphold the conviction despite the absence of an eyewitness to the actual shooting.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, on homicide, provides:

Article 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the provision under which the Court ultimately sentenced the appellants after discarding the qualifying circumstances of murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the first assignment of error had no merit. Although there was no direct evidence of the commission of the crime, the prosecution's evidence constituted circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict, satisfying all three requisites. The Court traced the unbroken chain: the earlier altercation and challenge, Juancho alighting and firing, the victim parrying and running, Mateo emerging and asking where the victim was, the two following him into the alley, gunshots, the two coming out still holding their guns, and their flight. Facts consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, the Court said, may surpass even direct evidence in probative force.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was duly proved. Conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act itself, and like any element of the offense it must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. But it may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner of the offense, or inferred from acts pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. The appellants' specific acts unmistakably indicated a common purpose and design. The Court also rejected Juancho's claim that his identification was merely suggested by residents, holding that witnesses need not know the names of the accused so long as they recognized their faces, and that positive identification by disinterested witnesses prevails over denials and alibi. Flight, too, was an indication of a guilty mind.

On the third issue, the Court held that the appellants could not be convicted of murder, because treachery and abuse of superior strength were not sufficiently established. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself, without the slightest provocation on his part. Abuse of superior strength requires a notorious inequality of forces consciously sought by the assailants. The actual killing occurred in an alley and was not seen by the witnesses, so there was no way to determine whether these elements were met. Superiority in numbers is not necessarily superiority in strength, and although the two used guns against an unarmed victim, the prosecution failed to show a deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength. The crime was therefore homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period, and the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

On the fourth issue, the Court reduced the civil indemnity to fifty thousand pesos in accordance with prevailing judicial policy, and held that the award of moral damages had no factual basis. Since the heirs were entitled to actual damages but the amount could not be determined for lack of receipts, the Court awarded temperate damages of twenty-five thousand pesos.

Doctrine

Circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction when there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are drawn are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the acts of the accused showing a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest, but it must be established as convincingly as the criminal act itself. Treachery and abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated where the actual killing was not witnessed and the prosecution failed to show how the attack was initiated or that superior strength was deliberately sought. Flight is evidence of a guilty mind. Findings of fact of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded the highest respect absent arbitrariness.

Disposition

The Supreme Court modified the judgment, finding Mateo Gregorio and Juancho Osorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide rather than murder, sentencing each to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordering them to pay the heirs, jointly and severally, fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and twenty-five thousand pesos as temperate damages, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: conspiracy and guilt may rest on circumstantial evidence forming an unbroken chain, but treachery and abuse of superior strength must be proved by the evidence of the killing itself. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a student will reduce murder to homicide when the qualifying circumstances are not shown, and to test the requisites of circumstantial evidence and the rules on civil indemnity and temperate damages.