PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE SOLDAO, CAMILO ZUÑIGA, NARCISO ZUÑIGA & BENIGNO ZUÑIGA, JORGE SOLDAO, TOMAS DELA CRUZ AND ROGELIO VALENCIA, ACCUSED-APPEL…

People versus Soldao

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a murder case. The People of the Philippines prosecuted several accused for the killing of Bernardo Arellano, known as Benny, who was stabbed to death in a barangay store in Pangasinan in April 1985. Three of the accused were arrested, tried, convicted of murder, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, while four others remained at large. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact illustration of three doctrines that examiners love: the requisites of self-defense and why the number and location of wounds negate it, the proof needed to establish conspiracy, and the fine distinction between treachery, which qualifies a killing to murder, and evident premeditation, which the Court here found absent.

Procedural History

The accused were charged with murder before Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region in Lingayen, Pangasinan. After trial, the court, through Judge Cornelio Wasan, Sr., rendered judgment finding Jorge Soldao, Tomas dela Cruz, and Rogelio Valencia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Jorge Soldao withdrew his appeal, and the Court confirmed the voluntariness of that withdrawal. The appeal therefore proceeded only as to the remaining accused-appellants, who raised self-defense, the absence of conspiracy, and the erroneous appreciation of treachery and evident premeditation.

Facts

On April 12, 1985, before noon, Bernardo Arellano and his companions Saturnino Fernandez and Ricardo Malicdem were walking to visit a friend. Benny became thirsty and stopped at the store of Jose Soldao, while his two companions waited some five meters away. Jorge Soldao, Rogelio Valencia, and Barangay Captain Alfredo Maza were conversing in front of the store. Benny knocked, bought a bottle of Pop Cola, and turned to offer it to his companions.

Suddenly and without warning, Jose Soldao covered Benny's eyes, and Jorge Soldao immediately stabbed him on the left chest. Benny ran, but Jorge overtook him and stabbed him again on the left armpit. When Benny fell, Rogelio Valencia urged Jorge to stab him again, saying, on the upper part, on the upper part. Tomas dela Cruz then came from behind the store and plunged a knife into the victim as he lay prone, and before leaving, turned the body and stabbed him twice more on the breast. When Saturnino and Ricardo tried to help their friend, the three Zuñigas, Camilo, Narciso, and Benigno, brandished their bolos and drove them away.

Herminio Achera, the victim's uncle, rushed to the scene and, taking cover behind a fence, saw seven men clubbing and hitting Benny as he lay on the ground. The autopsy showed six stab and puncture wounds, several of them eight to eleven inches deep, and the attending physician testified that more than one assailant and more than one weapon were likely used. Jorge Soldao claimed self-defense, saying Benny attacked him first and that he only parried blows with the balisong. Rogelio Valencia pleaded alibi, and Tomas dela Cruz denied being present at all.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defense of Jorge Soldao.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the accused acted in conspiracy.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying it to murder.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was correctly appreciated.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14, Number 16, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery:

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

This is the provision the Court applied in holding that the sudden blinding and stabbing of the victim qualified the killing to murder.

Article 14, Number 13 of the Revised Penal Code defines evident premeditation, which the Court discussed in rejecting its appreciation:

The execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

The Court required proof of the time the offenders determined to commit the crime, an act showing they clung to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the rejection of self-defense. The eyewitness accounts of Ricardo Malicdem and Herminio Achera described in detail the sequence and manner of the stabbing, and the trial court had observed their demeanor and found them straightforward and natural. The number, kind, and location of the wounds, on the breast, the side, and the back, negated self-defense and indicated that more than one assailant and more than one weapon were used.

On the second issue, the Court found conspiracy from the concerted effort to kill. Jose Soldao covered the victim's eyes while Jorge Soldao stabbed him; Tomas dela Cruz came from behind and stabbed him again; Valencia urged further attack and struck the victim; the Zuñigas blocked the companions with bolos; and all seven struck and clubbed the victim as he lay on the ground. From these facts, no other conclusion could be drawn than that the accused acted in concert and with a common design.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. The suddenness of the attack, with Jose Soldao covering the victim's eyes to afford Jorge the opportunity to plunge his balisong, rendered the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself. Covering the victim's eyes without warning and stabbing him immediately temporarily blinds him and leaves him no opportunity to defend himself.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the appellants. There was no proof of the time when the offenders determined to commit the crime, of an act manifestly indicating that they clung to that determination, and of a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where there is no direct evidence of planning and preparation to kill.

Doctrine

First, self-defense must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence, and the physical evidence of numerous deep wounds on different parts of the body, including the back, negates the claim that the accused acted only in defense. Second, conspiracy is established not by direct proof of agreement but by the concerted acts of the accused showing a common design, as when one blinds the victim while another stabs him and others block would-be rescuers. Third, treachery under Article 14, Number 16, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is present when the attack is sudden and unexpected and the victim is rendered unable to defend himself, as when his eyes are covered without warning before the stabbing. Fourth, evident premeditation under Article 14, Number 13 requires proof of the time of determination, an act showing the offender clung to it, and sufficient lapse of time for cool reflection, and absent such proof it cannot be appreciated.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, with the modification that the death indemnity to be paid to the heirs of Bernardo Arellano was increased to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: covering the victim's eyes without warning and stabbing him immediately is treachery, because it renders him unable and unprepared to defend himself. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between treachery and evident premeditation, and to test how the number and location of wounds negate self-defense and prove conspiracy.