THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GIL UY AND ROGELIO JOLITO (AT LARGE), ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Uy

The Case

This is People versus Uy, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Gil Uy and Rogelio Jolito for the killing of Felino Bantanos. Jolito was never arrested and remained at large, so only Gil Uy stood trial. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules on the credibility of witnesses, the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, the existence of conspiracy, and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. It is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings of a trial court on appeal.

Procedural History

On September 12, 1984, a complaint for murder was filed against Gil Uy and Rogelio Jolito before the Municipal Trial Court of Alangalang, Leyte. After preliminary examination, the municipal trial judge ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Gil Uy was arrested and detained; Rogelio Jolito was not arrested and remained at large. The municipal trial judge later found a prima facie case and forwarded the records to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, and on December 19, 1984, an information for murder was filed against both accused.

Upon arraignment, Gil Uy entered a plea of not guilty, and trial followed before the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte. That court, in its decision of March 15, 1988, found Gil Uy guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder, with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and without any mitigating circumstance, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos. Gil Uy appealed to the Supreme Court, and the appeal is the matter now before us.

Facts

On September 8, 1984, at about half past five in the afternoon, Sonia Bantanos-Andrada, sister of the victim, was inside their house cuddling her eight-month old child when she heard a woman shout. Looking out through the window, she saw her brother Felino Bantanos with Rogelio Jolito, whose arm was on Felino's shoulder. Shortly thereafter, Gil Uy went behind them and stabbed Felino with a long knife, hitting him below the left armpit. As Felino reeled, Gil Uy stabbed him again on the left side of his chest, and Felino fell to the ground. Both Rogelio Jolito and Gil Uy then took turns in stabbing Felino, after which they ran toward the house of Gil Uy.

The autopsy conducted by Doctor Edilberto Trinidad, the municipal health officer, showed six wounds, three of them fatal. One fatal wound was at the left side of the sternum and could have been inflicted when the assailant and the victim were facing each other. Two fatal wounds were at the back of the victim and could have been inflicted when the assailant was behind him. The doctor testified that the wounds suggested that at least two different weapons were used.

On the possible motive, the evidence showed that in July 1983 the victim had filed a complaint before the barangay captain against Gil Uy and his employees for challenging him to a fight, after the victim suspected that Gil Uy's employees were stealing from his house. Gil Uy alone did not appear at the barangay proceedings. The defense, for its part, presented witnesses who testified that it was Rogelio Jolito who stabbed the victim, and Gil Uy himself testified that he was inside his house when the incident happened. The trial court convicted Gil Uy, and he appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the testimony of the prosecution eyewitness, Sonia Bantanos-Andrada, despite the alleged contradictions and improbabilities in her testimony.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the killing to murder.
• Whether or not conspiracy existed between Gil Uy and Rogelio Jolito.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of recidivism was properly appreciated against Gil Uy.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes murder, is the provision under which Gil Uy was convicted, and the Court examines whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proved:

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: 1. 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.

The conviction rests on this provision, and the Court's ruling turns on whether treachery attended the killing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is devoid of merit. It is well settled that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances have been overlooked that may affect the result. The alleged contradictions referred to minor details that were not decisive. The Court also held that mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not automatically tarnish the testimony, for when there is no showing of improper motive, the natural interest of the witness in securing the conviction of the guilty would prevent her from implicating persons other than the culprits. The eyewitness account jibed with the autopsy report and the testimony of the doctor that more than one weapon was used and that wounds were found at the back of the victim, and numerous wounds indicate a plurality of assailants. On motive, the Court held that motive is essential only where there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit, and here the accused was positively identified.

On treachery, the Court held that the circumstances that would qualify a killing to murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. For treachery to be appreciated, the offender must have employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specifically to insure its execution without any risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court found that the lower court correctly appreciated treachery, because while Rogelio Jolito had his arm on the shoulder of the victim, Gil Uy, without the least warning, came from behind and stabbed the victim, and while the victim was already on the ground, the two took turns in stabbing him.

On conspiracy, the Court held that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, for the agreement may be inferred from the conduct of the parties disclosing a common understanding. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack, so that the act of one becomes the act of all. The Court found that the conduct of the two accused showed that they were in concert toward a common purpose to finish their victim to death.

On recidivism, the Court noted that Gil Uy had previously been convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Leyte, and the trial court appreciated recidivism as an aggravating circumstance without any mitigating circumstance to offset it.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that some facts or circumstances were overlooked that may affect the result. Second, relationship of a witness to the victim does not by itself render the testimony unworthy of credit where there is no showing of improper motive, and positive identification of the accused prevails over denial. Third, motive is essential only where there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Fourth, for treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the offender must have employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make, and the qualifying circumstance must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. Fifth, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and the agreement may be inferred from the conduct of the parties showing a common understanding, so that the act of one becomes the act of all.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in all respects, and Gil Uy's conviction for murder, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity to the heirs of the victim, stands.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal absent overlooked facts that may affect the result, and that treachery requires means, methods, or forms that insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender. Examiners like to use this case on the appreciation of treachery and conspiracy, and on the rule that relationship of a witness to the victim does not destroy credibility where there is no improper motive.