PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PA DRAFTEE FRANK QUINTOS (FRANKLIN QUINTOS), DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

In an information filed with the Court
of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch II, which
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1482, Philippine Army Draftee Frank Quintos was charged with the crime of murder committed as
follows:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“That on or about April 3, 1978, around 5:30 in the afternoon
at Calumpang, Makar,
General Santos City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously maul and club with a piece of wood one James Angeles
on the different parts of his body and
as a result of which mauling and clubbing, said James Angeles died.

“CONTRARY TO LAW, with aggravating circumstances of cruelty, taking
advantage of his public position and that the wrong done was augmented by another wrongful act not necessary
for the commission of the first wrong, that is throwing the deceased on a
pathway naked.” (Record, p. 29) (At pp. 6-7, Rollo)

xxx                xxx                   xxx

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.  After due trial, the trial court rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“ACCORDINGLY, finding Franklin Quintos
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, he is hereby sentenced
to RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased James Angeles in
the sum of P20,000.00 as actual, moral, and exemplary damages and to pay the costs.” (At
p. 20, Rollo)

xxx                xxx                   xxx

The accused, Frank Quintos has appealed
from said judgment.

The facts as summarized in the People’s brief are as follows:

“Sometime in the last week of March, 1978, the deceased, James
Angeles, an eighteen-year (18) old
farmer and a resident of Silway 8, Polomolok, South Cotabato went to
Carmen, North Cotabato to ask for food from
relatives.  (p. 44, tsn,
Sept. 12, 1978)

“On April 3, 1978,
his cousin, Efraim Madrid
gave him a sack of rice and P200.00.  The
deceased and Romulo de Leon,
rode on a ‘Maguindanao‘ bus bound for General
Santos City.  At around 2:30
P.M., they arrived in General Santos
City.  They unloaded their sack of rice
from the bus and loaded it in a Ford Fiera that was
bound for Silway 8. 
As they were hungry at
that time, they went to a restaurant to eat. 
While eating at the restaurant, the accused, Franklin Quintos, a draftee of the Philippine Army assigned with the
16th Batallion, who was drinking beer at that time,
in fatigue uniform, approached the deceased and de Leon and began investigating
them.  He asked the deceased where he came
from, the persons he knew in Polomolok, South
Cotabato and demanded from the deceased
that he show his residence certificate. 
Meantime, de Leon went to check the sack of rice in the Ford Fiera.  When he returned to the restaurant, the deceased and the accused were no
longer there.  He departed at once and
went back to Carmen, North Cotabato.  He informed Efraim Madrid
about the incident that had taken place in the restaurant.  (pp. 51-54, tsn, Sept. 12, 1978)

“It appears that
after the investigation in the restaurant, the accused ordered the deceased to
ride with him on a tricycle.  He took the deceased to the ranch of one Felomino Lamoy in Calumpang, General
Santos City
which was two (2) kilometers from the Army Headquarters and 150 meters from the
highway.  They arrived in said place at
around 5:00 P.M.  The accused alighted first, immediately
pulled the deceased (sic), gave him a series of fist blows and kicks and
whipped him with the buckle of his belt.  Thereafter, the accused took the deceased to
the water pump, all the while kicking and boxing the deceased.  Melanie Lanoy, a
tuba gatherer asked the compadre of the accused
‘Pare, what is the fault of that man, why are you mauling him?’ The accused answered, ‘This
is a rebel pare.’ Lanoy, said, ‘Pare, if he is a
rebel, do not bring him in the civilian area but bring him to your camp.’ The
accused then said, ‘No pare, because I will bring this person to Siguil and cut his neck.’ As his (Lanoy)
efforts proved futile to dissuade his compadre, he
went home.  (pp. 30-22, tsn, Sept. 12,
1978)

“The accused then ordered the deceased to take off his clothes
and take a bath.  After the deceased took
a bath, the accused ordered him to put on his clothes.  The accused again gave kicks and fist blows
to the deceased.  Still dissatisfied, he
picked a piece of wood and beat
the deceased up until the latter fell unconscious.  (pp. 9-10, 14, 17, 22- 24, tsn, Sept. 12,
1978)

“On April 4, 1978,
Policeman Valentino Asetre of General
Santos City
received information that a cadaver had been found in Calumpang,
General Santos
City.  Together with Cpl. Coronia
and Patrolman Tating, Asetre
went to Calumpang. 
There, they saw a cadaver on the ranch of Felomino
Lanoy, naked, its body and face black with multiple
abrasions and contusions amid thorny grasses. 
After taking photographs, they took the cadaver to Funeraria
Villa.  (pp. 69-71, tsn,
Sept. 12, 1978)

“Dr. Jose L. Alvadaro, City Health
Officer of General Santos City conducted a post mortem examination of the
cadaver and assigned as cause of death:

‘1.    Multiple and severe
contusions and ecchymotic area all over the thorax,
causing intrathoracic hemorrhage

2.  Multiple fractures of
several ribs.

3.  Severe contusions and
multiple lacerations all over the head, causing cerebral hemorrhage.

4. 
Multiple and severe contusions, lacerations and ecchymotic area all over the extremities, back and
abdomen.’ (pp. 5-8, tsn, Sept. 12, 1978)

“On April 6, 1978,
Shirley Angeles identified the cadaver as that of her brother, James Angeles.  (p. 71, tsn, Sept.
12, 1978)” (People’s Brief, pp. 3-6)

The trial court found the accused guilty of murder qualified by
evident premeditation.  It also
considered two aggravating circumstances, namely taking advantage of public position
and unnecessary cruelty, but which aggravating circumstances were offset by two
mitigating circumstances, voluntary
surrender and passion and obfuscation.

The accused does not actually deny culpability for the offense
charged.  His brief simply attempts to reduce such culpability and the penalty that
should be imposed.

The facts from the viewpoint of the appellant are summarized by
the trial court as follows:

“Franklin Quintos, 20 years old,
single, testifying for his defense, denied the voluntariness
of the execution of his
confession although he admitted most of the answers therein which were
apparently favorable to him.  It is his
story that on April 3, 1978,
at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon, he was with his companions Rico
Aranilla and Mario Rosario waiting for a ride to return to Calumpang.  His two companions, though, went home ahead
of him and he was left alone when he noticed a person who seemed to be a rebel
because he pretended to be a military,
wearing a belt and a hat, but afraid of soldiers.  He bumped him so he asked him where he came
from and if he was a soldier.  He
answered that he came from Carmen, North Cotabato,
and that he is a soldier.  Asked to what
unit he belongs, the answer was 26th
IB and that his Commanding Officer is Romeo Panes.  It occured
therefore to him that he was a rebel because this Romeo Panes is publicly known
as leader of the rebel forces.  He
arrested him, boarded a tricycle and brought him to their headquarters.  When they were about to reach their
headquarters, the man refused to go with him. 
While he was lighting his cigarette, the deceased boxed him, hitting him
on his stomach.  They exchanged blows as
a result of which, the man lost consciousness. 
When he regained, he directed him to be brought to the headquarters for
interrogation but he still refused.  At
that time Rico Aranilla and Mauro Rosario passed by
so he asked them to help him bring the victim to their headquarters, but the
duo refused to do so because it was already time and that they will just send
somebody to help him.  While waiting, the
deceased ran away so he chased
him at a distance of about two (2) kilometers.  He overtook him and asked him why he was not
going with him to the headquarters when he was not harming him.  The deceased answered that he has no fault,
at the same time boxing him, hitting his breast.  They exchanged blows again.  As the deceased was at the losing end of the
fist fight, tried to get a piece of stick (seventeen inches long and a little
bit smaller than his forearm), he grappled with him.  When he had wrested it, he struck him with it
on his head, causing him to fall to the ground. 
Unconscious, he left him and reported to Lt. Licodine,
his Platoon Leader, that he had mauled a civilian
suspected to be a rebel.  He was placed
inside the stockade.  He had confidential
mission given to him by one Capt. Blanco and that mission includes even the
license to kill.  x x x.” (Rollo, pp. 17-18)

The appellant states that the trial court made the following
errors:

I

“THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED­-APPELLANT GUILTY OF MURDER INSTEAD OF
HOMICIDE.

II

“THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
PUBLIC POSITION AND UNNECESSARY CRUELTY.” (Brief for Appellant, p. 1)

We agree with the petitioner that the qualifying circumstance of
evident premeditation is not present in the instant case.

For evident premeditation to be considered, it is necessary that the following
elements are established:  (1) the time
when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination; (3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution
to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.  (People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo
Talla and Tolito Talla, G.R. No. L-44414, January 18, 1990)

In the instant case, the victim and the accused casually met in
the restaurant in General Santos
City at around 2:30 P.M.  It was only after the accused and the deceased arrived at Calumpang
which must be between 3 and 5 o’clock that said accused uttered “No, Pare, I will bring him to Siguil
to cut his neck.” At that time, the victim was already being mauled
and the mauling continued until the
victim lost consciousness and later died. 
The resolution to kill was therefore, made only upon the utterance of
the accused.  When the victim lay unconscious, the accused left and went to their headquarters. 
He reported to his superior that
he had mauled a civilian and left him unconscious.  The whole evening, the accused just stayed in
their headquarters.  Under these
circumstances, evident premeditation is
clearly not present.  The time when the
accused determined to commit the crime
was not established nor was
there sufficient time and opportunity for the accused to deliberate on the
meaning and the consequences of his act. 
(People of the Philippines v. Jesus Francisco, G.R. No. 69580, February 15,
1990)

The aggravating circumstances of cruelty and taking advantage of
public position were, however, correctly appreciated by the trial court.

At the time of the incident, the accused was an army draftee and
was in full army fatigue uniform.  It was
on account of his being an army man that he arrested the victim on the pretext
that the latter was a rebel and brought him to the ranch of Felomino
Lanoy where
the victim was mauled to death.

Cruelty was clearly present considering that the accused
deliberately prolonged the suffering of the victim by boxing and kicking him in
a malevolent manner.  He even ordered the
victim to strip naked and take a bath. 
With the contusions and abrasions on the victim’s body and the mental torment that must have accompanied this
unusual order in the midst of a beating, the bath surely caused him excruciating
pain.  Not contented with this, the
accused continued to inflict on the victim after the bath, a barrage of
fist blows and kicks.

Considering that the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation was not sufficiently proved, the crime committed by the accused
is therefore, only homicide with the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and
taking advantage of public position and with the mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender and the analogous circumstance of passion and obfuscation
because of an outraged feeling, believing the deceased to be a rebel.  (p. 15 Decision)

The penalty prescribed for the offense of Homicide is reclusion temporal or a period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
penalty to be imposed upon the accused should be from eight (8) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four
(4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.  The indemnity to be
paid to the heirs of the victim shall
also be increased to P30,000.000 in line with
the recent decisions of the Court on the matter.

WHEREFORE, the
judgment of conviction appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
modifications.  The penalty imposed on
the accused-appellant is reduced to a penalty of eight (8) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor
as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum while the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victim is increased to P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, and Bidin, JJ., concur.

Cortes, J., no part.