PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ARIES REYES Y HILARIO, ARGIE REYES Y HILARIO, ARTHUR HILARIO, AND DEMETRIO SAHAGUN Y MANALILI, ACCUSED, ARIES REYES Y HILARIO A…

People versus Reyes

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Aries Reyes and Demetrio Sahagun, together with two co-accused who remained at large, for the killing of Jun Balmores along Hidalgo Street in Quiapo, Manila. The accused were charged with murder, qualified by treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation. The case matters because it is a compact review of three doctrines every bar candidate must command: the elements of murder, the nature of conspiracy, and the rule that a qualifying circumstance must be proved with the same rigor as the killing itself. It also teaches the corrective power of the Supreme Court on appeal: a conviction for murder may be reduced to homicide when the qualifying circumstances fail.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3, after trial, found Aries Reyes and Demetrio Sahagun guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and aggravated by treachery. It sentenced them to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered them to pay the heirs civil indemnity, actual damages, temperate damages, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the award of damages, holding that treachery attended the killing and that abuse of superior strength was absorbed in treachery. The accused then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, praying for acquittal and, in the alternative, for conviction only of homicide. Both sides adopted their briefs filed before the Court of Appeals in lieu of supplemental briefs.

Facts

The victim Jun Balmores, the appellants Demetrio Sahagun and Aries Reyes, and the co-accused Argie Reyes and Arthur Hilario were all vendors along Hidalgo Street in Quiapo, Manila. On August 5, 2007, police apprehended illegal vendors in the area. Jun asked the Reyes brothers to let his mother leave her wares and vegetables in their stall, but they refused, and an argument ensued.

In the late afternoon, Jun and his wife Catherine packed up their wares to go home. Jun walked back to Hidalgo Street for a shoulder bag he had left behind. When the appellants and their co-accused saw him, they pursued him. Demetrio hit him on the head with a plastic chair, causing him to fall. Arthur and Aries alternately hit him with broomsticks. Jun got back on his feet and ran toward Villalobos Street, where Argie was waiting. Argie stabbed him in the left side of his body, and later caught up with him and stabbed him in the arm. Jun fell and never rose again. He was declared dead on arrival at the hospital, having died of hypovolemic shock secondary to a stab wound of the trunk.

The defense claimed that the appellants were playing cards inside the Picache Building when the stabbing occurred, that Jun had argued with Argie and brandished a knife, and that Argie alone stabbed Jun after wrestling the knife away. The defense also claimed that the incident had ended before the appellants arrived.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellants' conviction for murder.
• Whether or not the appellants conspired with their co-accused in killing the victim, such that the act of one is the act of all.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the killing.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code 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: 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 provision under which the appellants were charged and convicted, and its enumerated circumstances are what elevate a killing from homicide to murder.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code defines homicide:

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 convicted the appellants, there being no qualifying circumstance.

Article 2224 of the Civil Code governs temperate damages:

Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.

This is the basis for the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction for murder could not stand. Murder requires that a person was killed, that the accused killed him, that the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance under Article 248, and that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The first and fourth elements were undisputed. As to the second, the eyewitness testimony of Fernando dela Cruz, corroborated by Catherine Balmores, Jonalyn Balmores, and Mary Ann Nuñez, established that the appellants and their co-accused acted in concert to kill Jun. The Court held that conspiracy does not require express agreement; it is enough that at the time of the offense the assailants had the same purpose and were united in its execution. The fact that Argie alone delivered the final blow did not diminish the appellants' culpability, because in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery was not proved. The essence of treachery is the swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner of attack that affords the victim no opportunity to resist or escape. Here, the morning argument had ended hours before the killing, and there was no showing that the appellants knew Jun would return or that they planned the attack. They acted spontaneously upon seeing him. Moreover, Jun was able to get back on his feet and run for his life, showing he was not rendered totally defenseless. The Court also clarified that abuse of superior strength, when absorbed in treachery, cannot be appreciated separately, but when treachery is absent, abuse of superior strength may qualify the killing. However, no evidence showed that the appellants consciously sought the advantage of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers, four against one, is not indicative of abuse of superior strength, nor is the mere fact that they were armed. Thus, with no qualifying circumstance, the appellants were guilty only of homicide under Article 249.

On the penalty, applying the indeterminate sentence law, the Court imposed eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. On damages, the Court awarded civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos and moral damages of 50,000 pesos, and affirmed actual damages of 28,266.15 pesos. It deleted exemplary damages because no aggravating circumstance was proved. On loss of earning capacity, the Court held that Catherine's unsubstantiated testimony was insufficient, but since earning capacity was clearly established, temperate damages may be awarded. The Court reduced the temperate damages to 300,000 pesos, conformably with prevailing jurisprudence on the usual earnings of a vendor.

Doctrine

Murder requires the concurrence of four elements: a person was killed, the accused killed him, the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance under Article 248, and the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Conspiracy exists when the assailants had the same purpose and were united in its execution, and in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. Treachery requires a swift, deliberate, and unexpected attack that leaves the victim no opportunity to resist or escape; it is not present when the attack is spontaneous and triggered by the sight of the victim. Abuse of superior strength requires a notorious inequality of forces consciously sought by the aggressor; mere superiority in numbers or the mere fact of being armed is not enough. When no qualifying circumstance attends the killing, the crime is homicide under Article 249. Temperate damages may be awarded in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity when earning capacity is clearly established but the actual income is not proven, under Article 2224 of the Civil Code.

Disposition

The appeal was partly granted. The appellants were convicted of homicide, not murder, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, and were ordered to pay the heirs civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, and temperate damages, with interest.

Remember This

Remember the line: in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, but a qualifying circumstance must be proved as rigorously as the killing itself. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between murder and homicide, the requisites of treachery and abuse of superior strength, and the rule on temperate damages for loss of earning capacity.