THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AURELIO ESPINOSA @ “ROLLY” AND JESUS FLORO Y JUNDOY, ACCUSED. JESUS FLORO Y JUNDOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Espinosa

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Aurelio Espinosa, also known as Rolly, and Jesus Floro. It is a criminal case for murder, arising from the killing of Jaime Mamucod on the evening of May 6, 1981. Espinosa was never tried and remains at large; only Floro appeals his conviction. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the doctrines that examiners test again and again: the conclusiveness on appeal of the trial court's credibility findings, the treatment of minor inconsistencies in the testimony of young eyewitnesses, the meaning of the phrase stab wounds in a necropsy report, unexplained flight as an indication of guilt, conspiracy inferred from concerted acts, and treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed against Espinosa and Floro only on July 19, 1983, more than two years after the killing. The case was tried before Judge Rosalio de Leon of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The trial court convicted Floro and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay 30,000 pesos as civil indemnity to the victim's heirs. Espinosa was never tried and remains at large. Floro appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case on December 20, 1989.

Facts

On the evening of May 6, 1981, at about nine o'clock, Jaime Mamucod was driving his jeep along Almeda Street in Santa Cruz, Manila. His two sons were with him: Arnold, then sixteen, seated at the front beside his father, and Ariel, then fifteen, seated behind them. Their jeep was blocked by Espinosa and Floro. Floro first struck Jaime on the head with a hard object about a foot long, wrapped in a newspaper. When Jaime fell off the jeep, Espinosa stabbed him repeatedly in the back with a fan knife, and Floro, using an ice pick, stabbed him several times in the chest.

Jaime ran for his life, but the two pursued him and kept stabbing him until he fell into a ditch. The assailants then walked away fast. Ariel brought his dying father on a tricycle to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital, where Jaime died the following day. A bystander, Manuel Buenaventura, who saw the stabbing while on a tricycle waiting to cross Abad Santos Street, also identified the two accused. The necropsy report of Dr. Luis Larion, admitted by the defense without his testimony, declared that Jaime died of profuse hemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab wounds penetrating the chest and piercing the right lung and branches of the right pulmonary artery and vein.

Floro invoked alibi. He admitted he was at the basketball court earlier that evening coaching a team, but claimed he left when the games were called off and was in his house on Almeda Street at the time of the stabbing. On cross examination, however, he declared that his house was only about two hundred meters, or two or three minutes' walk, from the scene of the crime. The defense also presented Lilia Silva, a prosecution witness who said she saw Espinosa chasing and stabbing Jaime but made no mention of Floro, and who admitted she did not see Floro stabbing the victim. The defense stressed inconsistencies between the brothers: Arnold said Floro hit Jaime on the nape, Ariel said on top of the head; Arnold said Jaime was stabbed while lying on the ground, Ariel said while standing. The defense also argued that the necropsy report spoke only of stab wounds, not punctured wounds, which supposedly disproved the ice pick.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court's findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should be upheld on appeal despite the alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies.
• Whether or not the failure of the necropsy report to mention punctured wounds disproves the testimony that Floro used an ice pick.
• Whether or not Floro's flight and hiding for more than two years may be considered as evidence of guilt.
• Whether or not conspiracy attended the killing, making Floro liable for the acts of his co-accused.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the killing to murder.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision verbatim; it applies the settled doctrines on credibility, flight, conspiracy, and treachery. The Court does, however, quote a definition of stab wounds from a work on legal medicine, which it uses to construe the necropsy report:

Stab wounds are used generically to include all wounds that may be caused by weapons such as knives, scissors, three-cornered files, or ice picks with a circular shaft, all possessing a sharp point but having blades of different shapes.

This definition bears on the case because it shows that an ice pick produces a stab wound, so the necropsy report's silence on punctured wounds does not contradict the eyewitnesses.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court. Absent a showing that its conclusions are arbitrary or without basis, they must be regarded with respect and accepted as conclusive on appeal. The discrepancies between Arnold and Ariel were not unnatural: the brothers had different vantage points, and under the traumatizing circumstance of watching their own father being stabbed, boys of sixteen and fifteen can hardly be expected to remember the grisly stabbing in perfect detail. Lilia Silva's testimony was less than conclusive of Floro's innocence, since she narrated only the latter part of the incident and admitted there were many people around.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument. The phrase stab wounds is used generically, and stabbing may be done with an ice pick, the puncture being correctly called a stab wound.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the appellant did not dispute the finding that Floro was in hiding for more than two years, which may explain why the information could not be filed in 1981. The Court held that unexplained flight is an indication of guilt, quoting: "The guilty flee when no man pursueth but the innocent are as bold as a lion."

On the fourth issue, the Court found conspiracy. Floro and Espinosa together blocked the jeep; Floro struck first with the stick; Espinosa stabbed the back; Floro stabbed the chest with the ice pick; they pursued the fleeing victim and fled together. From these acts, the two had come to an agreement concerning the attack, making each conspirator liable for the other's acts.

On the fifth issue, the Court agreed that treachery qualified the killing to murder. The victim was totally defenseless, caught by surprise when Espinosa and Floro, whom he considered his friends, suddenly attacked him without warning.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the trial court's assessment of credibility is conclusive on appeal absent a showing that its conclusions are arbitrary or without basis, because the trial judge observed the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. Second, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of young eyewitnesses, especially those who witnessed the killing of their own father, do not destroy credibility; different vantage points explain different details. Third, the phrase stab wounds in a necropsy report is generic and includes wounds inflicted by an ice pick. Fourth, unexplained flight is an indication of guilt. Fifth, conspiracy exists when the accused act in concert in pursuit of a common design, and each conspirator is liable for the acts of the others. Sixth, treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the victim is totally defenseless and attacked without warning.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment in its entirety, with costs against the accused-appellant Floro.

Remember This

Memorize the line that unexplained flight is an indication of guilt, and that the trial court's credibility findings are conclusive on appeal absent arbitrariness. Examiners use this case for the treatment of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, the generic meaning of stab wounds, conspiracy inferred from concerted acts, and treachery against a defenseless victim.