PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EXEQUIEL CANTRE Y BON AND EMMANUEL MARIANO Y DALISAY ALIAS MANNY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from
the decision of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 102 (Quezon City) dated August
31, 1984, finding accused-appellants Exequiel Cantre y Bon and Emmanuel Mariano y Dalisay
alias “Manny” guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder and sentencing them to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim,
Ramon D. Sanchez, in the sum of P30,000.00 for his death, including P42,354.65
as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.^[1]

On June 9, 1984,
at about four o’clock in the morning,
while drinking beer at Cecile’s Eatery located at 73 Timog Avenue, Quezon
City, Ramon D. Sanchez, 31 years old, businessman,
son of a former representative from Agusan del Norte,
was approached by accused Exequiel Cantre, 38 years old, a waiter at the Bluebird Cocktail
Lounge located across the street.  An
argument ensued.  To calm himself,
Sanchez stood up and walked towards his car which was parked in front of the eatery.  While standing beside his car, Sanchez was
pelted with fist-sized stones by the other accused, Emmanuel Mariano, 21 years
old, a cook at the nearby Vincent Barn House,
and his three companions named Mike, Jimmy and an unidentified
person.  Sanchez was hit on the
head.  Thereafter, Cantre,
armed with an eight-inch long kitchen knife, stabbed Sanchez several times while Mariano continued stoning
the besieged victim.^[2]

Seriously wounded and dying, Sanchez collapsed on the ground.  Upon seeing the fallen Sanchez, Mariano
lifted the victim bodily, pulled him towards the back of the car and laid him
on the sidewalk near the gutter.^[3]
There he divested Sanchez of his Seiko wristwatch worth P900.00 and hastily
left the scene of the crime with the other assailants.^[4]

An hour later, or about five
o’clock in the morning, two responding Quezon City policemen arrived at
Cecile’s Eatery and took the young Sanchez by taxi to the Capitol
Medical Center where he died the following day, June 10, 1984.^[5] The
autopsy report disclosed that in
addition to contused abrasions,
lacerated wounds and one incised
wound, Sanchez sustained seven stab wounds, several of which penetrated the liver and the ascending colon.  The cause of death was hemorrhage, secondary
to stab wounds of the abdomen.^[6]

In an information
dated June 20, 1984, Exequiel Cantre y Bon alias “Sequel”, Emmanuel
Mariano y Dalisay alias “Manny”, Mike Doe,
John Doe alias “Junior” and Peter Doe were charged with murder committed as follows:

“That on or about the
9th day of June, 1984 in Quezon City,
Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
together, confederating with and mutually
helping each other, with intent to
kill and without any justifiable cause, qualified with grave abuse of superior strength, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
person of RAMON SANCHEZ by then and there stabbing the latter on the
different parts of his body, hitting him
with stone while laying prostrate
on the ground, thereby inflicting upon said RAMON SANCHEZ serious and mortal
wounds which were the direct
cause of his death, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of
said RAMON SANCHEZ in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.  x x x“^[7]

Of the several
malefactors, only Cantre and Mariano were
apprehended.  Upon their arraignment on June 25,
1984, both accused
pleaded “not guilty” and trial proceeded against them.^[8] On
August 31, 1984,
the lower court rendered the judgment of conviction now under review.

In their appellants’ brief, accused-appellants Cantre and Mariano contended that the trial court erred in
appreciating the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior
strength to qualify the offense to murder and therefore they should only have
been convicted of homicide; in holding that there was conspiracy, and in
considering their extrajudicial confessions against them despite the evidence of police
maltreatment.^[9]

To change the nature of the crime from homicide to murder, the
aggravating circumstance of treachery must be alleged in the information.^[10]
Since treachery was not alleged in the information filed against appellants, we
can only consider treachery as a
generic aggravating circumstance, and only if it is duly proven.  But as correctly contended by the appellants, the
killing was not treacherous.  To recall,
the fatal assault on Sanchez was preceded by a heated argument between him and Cantre.  Sanchez apparently resented that Cantre chose to sit
at his table when there were other vacant tables.^[11]
The verbal altercation with Cantre must have placed
Sanchez on guard.  As a general rule,
treachery must exist at the inception of the attack.

Moreover, Dr. Garcia,
who performed the autopsy, noted that except for the stab wounds on the right
side of the chest and body of the deceased, “more on the back
portion”, the rest had been inflicted frontally.^[12]
In other words, Sanchez was face-to-face with his killer when the latter drew
his knife.  For treachery to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance,
the offender should have deliberately employed means or methods in the
execution of the crime which tended directly to ensure its accomplishment
without any risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.^[13]

Nonetheless, the slaying of Sanchez was correctly categorized as
murder because of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength which was alleged in the information and
proven during trial.  There were five (5)
malefactors, one of whom (Cantre) was armed with an eight-inch kitchen knife and
the others with fist-sized stones who all took full advantage of their combined
strength in assaulting and overwhelming their unarmed victim.

Abuse of superior strength
is present in a case of three (3) armed men against a helpless victim.^[14]
Where the attack is not made with alevosia,
the number of assailants and the simultaneousness of the attack upon a
defenseless person may constitute abuse of superior force.^[15]

Appellants assert that there was no conspiracy because
they had varying degrees of participation in the crime charged.  We cannot agree.  The evidence presented by the prosecution all
pointed to a complicity among the appellants and their unidentified
companions.  Note the fast sequence of
events which unfolded in the dawn hours of June 9, 1984 from the time Sanchez stepped out of the eatery and stood beside his
car in an effort to calm himself.  Mariano and his companions began the
assault by throwing stones
at Sanchez, hitting him on the head; then the fatal thrusts of the knife in quick succession by Cantre
while Mariano and his cohorts continued to stone the victim; the act of
Mariano in dragging the barely conscious victim to the sidewalk next to the
gutter; and the assailants’ final escape from the scene by running away
together but in different directions.

Conspiracy is established by concerted action, it is also shown
by a unity of purpose at the time of the commission of the felony and unity in
its execution.^[16]

It is a primary rule that if two or more persons combine or
perform a criminal act, each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in
furtherance of the common design and the result is the same if the act is divided into parts and each proceeds with his
part unaided.^[17]
In legal contemplation, the act of each confederate is the act of all.^[18]
While only one of the conspirators might have inflicted the fatal wounds,
nevertheless, they must all be held liable for the killing because it was the
result of a conspiracy.^[19]

As a final argument, appellants maintain that their extrajudicial
confessions are inadmissible against them because the waiver of their
“Miranda” rights was made without the benefit of counsel.  They also complained of police maltreatment.^[20]

Appellants’ confessions assume very little significance in the
face of the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution to prove to a
degree of moral certainty that appellants Cantre and
Mariano are guilty of the murder of Sanchez. 
In other words, even without appellants’ admissions, their criminal
culpability has been established by other competent evidence.

Indeed, during the trial, the defense fought a losing battle. 
Cantre interposed an alibi but this was correctly rejected by the lower
court after it was shown that it was not impossible for the accused to be at
the situs of the crime.  More significantly, Cantre
and his co-accused Mariano were unerringly identified by eyewitnesses Shirley Pocsidio, a waitress at Cecile’s Eatery, and Sonia Albarracin and Erlinda Ranoco, both waitresses at Helen’s Kitchenette, who
narrated in detail how Cantre fatally knifed Sanchez
and how Mariano and his other companions stoned the victim while he was
standing next to his parked car.  The
area fronting Cecile’s Eatery where the crime took place was well lighted.^[21]
Pocsidio, Albarracin and Ranoco were approximately between two to five yards away
from the protagonists.  They were
familiar with the appellants.  They had
known each other for at least a month before the violent incident.  As a matter of fact, Albarracin
was so certain about Cantre that during the line-up
of suspects at the Bicutan Metrocom
Office on June 19, 1984,
she noticed that Cantre had shaved off his moustache
and sported a
new haircut.^[22]

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused-appellants having been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.  With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Criminal Case No. Q-33950, Original Record, p. 82.

^[2]
TSN, July 5, 1984, pp.
19-21; July 6, 1984, pp.
35-37.

^[3]
TSN, July 11, 1984, p. 91.

^[4]
Exh. T, Original Exhibits, p. 76.

^[5]
TSN, July 6, 1984, pp.
41-42.

^[6]
Exh. G, Original Exhibits, pp. 7-8.

^[7]
Original Record, p. 1.

^[8]
Original Record, pp. 4-5.

^[9]
Rollo, p. 57.

^[10]
People v. Posada, Jr., 142 SCRA 427.

^[11]
TSN, July 5, 1984, p. 36.

^[12]
TSN, July 19, 1984, pp. 116-117.

^[13]
People v. Delgado, 77 Phil. 11; People v. Lanseta,
No. L-30413, January 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 166; People v. Manalo, G.R. No. 55177, February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 98;
People v. Bacho, G.R. No. 66645, March 29,
1989; People v. Bustarde, G.R. No. 79160,
February 23, 1990.

^[14]
People v. Estrada, No. L-34036, November
29, 1983, 126 SCRA 94; People v. Abejero
y Villon,
No. L-36039, May 17, 1980,
97 SCRA 647.

^[15]
US v. Santiago Lasada, 21 Phil. 287.

^[16]
People v. Bravante, G.R. No. 73804, May 19,
1987, 150 SCRA 569; People v. Rosas, G.R. No. 72782, April 30, 1987, 149
SCRA 464; People v. Petil, G.R. No. 70223,
March 31, 1987, 149 SCRA 92.

^[17]
People v. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64.

^[18]
People v. Remigio, 37 Phil. 599.

^[19]
People v. Cariñgan, 61 Phil. 416.

^[20]
Exhs. S and T, Original Exhibits, pp. 74-76.

^[21]
TSN, July 5, 1984, p. 27; July 6, 1984, p. 59.

^[22]
TSN, July 10, 1984, p. 71.