PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARMANDO RODAS AND JOSE RODAS, SR.,ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Rodas

The Case

This is People versus Rodas, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Senior, together with two other members of the Rodas family, for the killing of Titing Asenda at a benefit dance in Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of murder: conspiracy and the act of one as the act of all, treachery as the qualifying circumstance, the treatment of evident premeditation, nocturnity and abuse of superior strength, the rule on how qualifying circumstances are alleged in the Information, and the schedule of damages for death caused by a crime.

Procedural History

Four members of the Rodas family were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, Branch Eleven. All four pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Before the prosecution rested, Charlito Rodas and Jose Rodas, Junior withdrew their pleas and pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of homicide; each was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty and ordered to indemnify the heirs. The trial court then rendered judgment on the ninth of July, nineteen hundred ninety-six, finding Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Senior guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, with an order to indemnify the heirs.

The accused filed a notice of appeal. Following the ruling in People versus Mateo, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. In a decision dated the twenty-eighth of July, two thousand six, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in full. The accused then came to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal, and the Court required supplemental briefs, which both sides chose to dispense with.

Facts

On the ninth of August, nineteen hundred ninety-six, Titing Asenda was in Milaub, Denoyan, Zamboanga del Norte, helping his brother Danilo harvest corn. That evening, around eight o'clock, a benefit dance sponsored by Boboy Raquilme was being held at Milaub. Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot stood near the fence watching the affair, and Titing Asenda stood near them.

The two witnesses saw Charlito Rodas, Armando Rodas, Jose Rodas, Junior and Jose Rodas, Senior surround Titing. Without a word, Charlito stabbed Titing at the back with a hunting knife. Armando then clubbed him with a chako, hitting the left side of the nape and causing him to fall. Jose, Senior then handed a bolo to Jose, Junior, who hacked the victim on the left elbow. When Asonda and Anggot tried to help, Armando pointed a gun at them and fired toward the sky. The assailants left, and the two witnesses found Titing already dead.

For the defense, Armando and Jose, Senior denied participation and interposed alibi, each claiming to have been elsewhere at the time. Vilma Rodas, Armando's wife, testified that only Charlito and Jose, Junior took part. The trial court gave credence to the two eyewitnesses, found conspiracy and treachery, and rejected the alibi and denial.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the accused were present at the dance and participated in attacking the victim.
• Whether or not, assuming guilt, the accused are liable only for homicide and not for murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy:

There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it.

This is the basis for holding each participant in the concerted attack answerable as a co-principal.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines and penalizes murder:

Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.

This fixes the penalty range from which the Court chose reclusion perpetua, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of divisible penalties:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof.

This is the provision the Court invoked, in its second paragraph, to impose reclusion perpetua instead of death.

Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court governs the contents of the Information:

Section 8 requires that the Information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

This settles that qualifying circumstances need only be specified, not labeled as qualifying.

Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides the basis for temperate damages:

Temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved.

This supports the award of temperate damages where burial and funeral expenses were not proven.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. Findings of the trial court on credibility deserve great weight and are conclusive when affirmed by the appellate court. The two eyewitnesses were near the victim and the place was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax, as even the defense witness Vilma Rodas admitted. The absence of a medical examination did not matter, because a medical certificate is not indispensable and conviction may rest on convincing testimonial evidence. Denial is intrinsically weak, a negative and self-serving assertion, and cannot prevail over positive testimony where no ill motive was shown. Alibi failed because the accused did not establish that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene, and their own witnesses gave conflicting accounts of distances, residences and who was where.

On conspiracy, the Court held that proof of a previous agreement is not essential; what is primordial is that the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose. Once conspiracy is established, all are answerable as co-principals, and the act of one is the act of all.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery qualified the killing. 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. The victim was completely unaware of the attack, there having been no altercation, and the suddenness of the assault, the number of the attackers and their weapons against an unarmed man foreclosed any defense. Evident premeditation was not proven, for the prosecution failed to show the time of the decision to kill, an overt act of persistence, and sufficient lapse of time for reflection. Nocturnity was not aggravating, because the place was adequately lighted and nighttime did not facilitate the crime or secure impunity. Abuse of superior strength attended the killing, given the disparity between the armed attackers and the unarmed victim, but it is absorbed in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately.

On the manner of allegation, the Court held that qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by the words qualifying or qualified by. It is the specific allegation of the attendant circumstance, not the label, that raises the crime to a higher category, and the Information here specified treachery.

Doctrine

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it, and it may be proven by the concerted acts of the participants rather than by direct proof of agreement. Once established, every conspirator is a co-principal and the act of one is the act of all.

Treachery qualifies a killing as murder when the attack is sudden and unexpected, the victim being unsuspecting and given no real chance to defend himself or retaliate. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately.

Evident premeditation requires the time of the decision, an overt act of persistence, and sufficient lapse of time for reflection, all proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nocturnity aggravates only when it facilitated the crime or was sought for impunity.

Under Section 8 of Rule 110, qualifying circumstances need only be specified in the Information; the words qualifying or qualified by are not required.

For death caused by a crime, the heirs are entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages where treachery is established, and temperate damages where the amount of pecuniary loss is not proven.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification, finding Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Senior guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay the heirs, jointly and severally, twenty-five thousand pesos as civil indemnity, fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, twenty-five thousand pesos as temperate damages and twenty-five thousand pesos as exemplary damages, with costs against them.

Remember This

Memorize this line: qualifying circumstances need only be specified in the Information, not labeled as qualifying, and it is the specific allegation that raises the crime to a higher category. Examiners use this case for conspiracy proven by concerted acts, for abuse of superior strength absorbed in treachery, and for the complete schedule of damages in murder.