PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO ZABALA y BALADA AND ROMEO ALBIUS JR. y BAUTISTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Zabala

The Case

This is People versus Zabala, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Edgardo Zabala and Romeo Albius Jr. for the killing of Joseph Agapay on the night of December 12, 2003 in Basud, Camarines Norte. The accused were charged with murder, convicted by the trial court, and now ask the Supreme Court for a final review of their conviction. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how alibi and denial collapse against positive identification, it illustrates conspiracy inferred from concerted acts, and it fixes the rules on treachery and on the amount of civil indemnity where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua rather than death.

Procedural History

An Information dated April 22, 2004 charged the two accused with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte, Branch 38. Edgardo was arraigned in July 2004 and Romeo in June 2005, and both pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on September 29, 2010, finding both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, with an order to pay the heirs, jointly and severally, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The next day, the trial court issued a supplemental judgment correcting the name of Romeo in the caption and dispositive portion to Romeo Albius Jr. y Bautista.

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. On February 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment in full. The accused then came to the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Court required supplemental briefs; both parties manifested that they were adopting the briefs already filed in the Court of Appeals.

Facts

At eight in the evening of December 12, 2003, the victim Joseph Agapay was with friends at the house of Catherine Perez in Barangay Mangcamagong, Basud, Camarines Norte. At nine o'clock Joseph said he was going home. His friends offered to walk with him; he declined, but they decided to follow about five minutes later.

As Joseph walked along the road, the two accused suddenly appeared and followed him from behind. When the friends were about fifteen to twenty meters away, they heard Joseph cry out and saw Romeo place his left hand on Joseph's shoulder and box him, while Edgardo held Joseph's hands from behind. Joseph struggled, and he and Edgardo fell into a nearby creek. Edgardo kept striking him and told him to shut up. Romeo, standing by the creek, approached the friends and told them to go home and not to get involved, so the group ran away. Aldrin and Roland, however, immediately returned and saw the two accused mauling Joseph until he fell to the ground unconscious; Edgardo then smashed Joseph's head with a stone.

The friends reported the incident to the police the following day and executed sworn affidavits. Dr. Victoria Gonzales, the municipal health officer, conducted the post mortem examination and testified that Joseph died of intracranial hemorrhage secondary to multiple depressed fractures of the skull with brain herniation, caused by pressure on the skull from a hard object such as a stone. For the defense, Romeo denied knowing the victim and claimed he was at home with his wife and child in Lalawigan, Mercedes, about four and a half hours away; Edgardo denied knowing Joseph and claimed he was tending his store in the same barangay, corroborated by a witness who said he was drinking at Edgardo's balcony.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the identities of the accused as the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt, despite the lighting condition on the night of the killing.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi can prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not conspiracy between the two accused was established.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the killing to murder.
• Whether or not the amounts of civil indemnity and exemplary damages awarded by the trial court were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, 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 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.

This is the crime charged, and treachery is the qualifying circumstance the Court examines.

Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery, which the Court quotes in its ruling:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.

This definition supplies the two conditions the Court applies to the killing of Joseph.

Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of divisible penalties:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible 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: 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

This is the basis for imposing reclusion perpetua rather than death.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that identity was proved. Aldrin positively identified both accused as the persons who mauled and killed Joseph, and his testimony that Edgardo smashed Joseph's face with a stone was confirmed by the medical testimony on the skull fractures. Cesar identified Romeo as the one who boxed Joseph while Edgardo held him from behind, and identified Edgardo through his voice as he uttered "huwag kang maingay" while striking the victim. The Court held that once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance, and the sound of a voice is an acceptable means of identification where the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for years. Both witnesses knew the accused as neighbors and friends, and Cesar visited their houses three or four times a week.

On the second issue, the Court rejected denial and alibi. Romeo's claim of being in Lalawigan was unsupported, and it was not shown that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Edgardo admitted he was at Mangcamagong attending his store that night, so it was not physically impossible for him to be present. The corroborating witness's testimony was found doubtful because, after learning that Edgardo was a suspect, he never told his superior officer nor went to the police station. Alibi and denial cannot prevail against positive identification by witnesses shown to have no improper motive to testify falsely.

On the third issue, the Court found conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and proof of the actual agreement need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied or inferred from their acts. The accused acted in concert: they followed Joseph together, Romeo held and boxed him while Edgardo held his hands, Romeo warned the friends away, they continued mauling him, Edgardo smashed his face with a stone when he fell unconscious, and they walked away together once their common purpose was achieved.

On the fourth issue, the Court found treachery. Two conditions must concur: the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted. Joseph was walking home unsuspecting of danger; the accused came from behind and assaulted him suddenly and unexpectedly, and he was continuously mauled until he fell unconscious before his head was smashed with a stone. Even a frontal attack that is sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity to repel it or defend oneself, constitutes treachery.

On the fifth issue, the Court modified the damages. Civil indemnity of 75,000 pesos is awarded where the crime is qualified by circumstances warranting the death penalty but death cannot be imposed because of the prohibition in Republic Act Number 9346. Here, since the circumstances called for reclusion perpetua only, the proper civil indemnity is 50,000 pesos. Moral damages of 50,000 pesos were proper, and exemplary damages were increased from 25,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos in line with current jurisprudence. Interest at six percent per annum was imposed on all damages from finality of the ruling until fully paid.

Doctrine

First, alibi and denial are the weakest of defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses who have no improper motive to testify falsely; alibi must be supported by proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene.

Second, identification may be made through the sound of a voice where the witness and the accused have known each other personally and closely for a number of years.

Third, conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused showing a common purpose, without direct proof of the agreement.

Fourth, treachery under Article 14, paragraph 16 requires two conditions: the means of execution gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and the means were deliberately and consciously adopted; a sudden and unexpected attack, even if frontal, constitutes treachery.

Fifth, the amount of civil indemnity depends on the penalty provided by law for the offense because of its heinousness, not on the penalty actually imposed; where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, civil indemnity is 50,000 pesos, not 75,000 pesos.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed; the conviction for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua were affirmed, with the civil indemnity reduced to 50,000 pesos and exemplary damages increased to 30,000 pesos, plus interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification by witnesses with no improper motive, and treachery exists when the sudden and unexpected attack gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself. Examiners use this case to test the two conditions of treachery and the rule that civil indemnity follows the penalty provided by law, not the penalty actually imposed.