PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SOTERO CRUZ Y SAN ANDRES, ACCUSED.

People versus Cruz

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Sotero Cruz y San Andres, a criminal case for murder decided by the Supreme Court in September 1992. The accused was charged with shooting dead his fellow tricycle driver and baptismal sponsor, Gerardo Lim, along a street in Pasig. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one short decision, three workhorses of criminal law: the finality of the trial court's factual findings, the meaning of treachery when the attack is sudden and face to face, and flight as evidence of guilt. It also illustrates how the Court treats the accused's own story when it is uncorroborated and contrary to human experience.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region sitting at Pasig, Branch 164. Upon arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment on June 22, 1990, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, imposing reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay 30,000 pesos to the heirs of the victim as compensatory damages, plus the costs. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: that the trial court failed to find the killing accidental, and that it erred in finding treachery. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, modifying only the amount of indemnity.

Facts

The accused and the victim were compadres, having stood as sponsors at the baptism of the son of a certain Nestor Lacuestas. The accused also drove one of the victim's two tricycles. Whenever the accused had financial problems he would ask help from the victim, and he would get angry when the victim could not help. When the victim sold the tricycle the accused was driving, the accused resented it and bore a grudge.

At about four o'clock in the afternoon of May 12, 1989, the victim was conversing with a co-tricycle driver, Teodulo Nacion, along Banaag Street in Pineda, Pasig, waiting for passengers. The accused suddenly appeared, approached the victim, and angrily uttered, "Pare, walang presidente-presidente sa akin," at the same time drawing a gun from the front of his waist and shooting the victim point blank. The bullet hit the upper left eyebrow and the victim fell to the ground. The accused, still holding the gun, boarded one of the parked tricycles and directed its driver to take him to the place where people wait for bancas to cross the Pasig river.

The victim was brought to the Rizal Medical Center, where he expired. An autopsy showed the cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to a gunshot wound in the head. The medical examiner also found tattooing on the wound caused by unburned gun powder residue, meaning the tip of the gun was only about seven to nine inches from the victim's skin. In his defense, the accused claimed the shooting was accidental: he said a drinking companion had handed him the gun to pawn, that he approached the victim to ask him to pawn it so he could buy medicine for his sick child, and that the gun went off as he was handing it over.

Issues

• Whether or not the killing of Gerardo Lim was accidental, with no intent to kill, because the gun went off as the accused was handing it to the victim.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the settled rules on the weight of the trial court's factual findings, on treachery as a qualifying circumstance in murder, and on flight as evidence of guilt, as these were developed in the cases it cites. The rule on treachery that the Court applies is stated in its own words:

Treachery is present in the commission of a crime when executed suddenly and unexpectedly even if made face to face.

This rule bears directly on the second issue, because it answers the accused's claim that a frontal attack cannot be treacherous.

On flight, the Court adopts the maxim:

The righteous is brave as a lion, but the wicked man fleeth.

This bears on the first issue, because the accused's abandonment of the victim and escape from the scene contradict his claim of accident.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the killing was not accidental. It applied the established rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court, which is in a better position to decide them, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. The two prosecution witnesses who were at the scene positively declared that the accused shot the victim. Their categorical declarations were not rebutted by any contrary convincing evidence, and there was no showing that they were prompted by improper motives. The Court added that friendship or even relationship is not a deterrent to the commission of a crime. It approved the Solicitor General's observation that if the shooting had been accidental, the accused would have come to the victim's aid and taken him to a hospital instead of abandoning him and escaping, and that no drinking companion or family member was presented to corroborate his story. His flight sealed his fate. The Court likewise rejected the pawning story, quoting the trial court's ruling that a handgun is not an ordinary item of commerce, is a government-controlled item, and that no person who owns one legitimately would offer it to somebody to pawn.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery was correctly appreciated. The victim was unarmed, and neither he nor Teodulo Nacion had the least suspicion of the accused's design to shoot him, while the accused had a gun. The victim therefore had no chance to defend himself against the frontal attack. The Court quoted its ruling that treachery is present when the crime is executed suddenly and unexpectedly even if made face to face. Treachery therefore qualified the killing as murder.

Finally, the Court increased the indemnification from 30,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos, conformably with recent rulings.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court, which heard the witnesses and observed their deportment, especially where the prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused and no improper motive was shown. Second, treachery qualifies a killing as murder when the attack is executed suddenly and unexpectedly, even if made face to face, where the victim is unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself. Third, flight is a silent admission of guilt, and an accused's abandonment of the victim and escape from the scene contradict a claim of accident. Fourth, friendship or relationship is not a deterrent to the commission of a crime. Fifth, the civil indemnity for the victim's death is fixed at 50,000 pesos.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, modifying only the award of indemnity to the heirs of the victim to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line: treachery is present when the crime is executed suddenly and unexpectedly even if made face to face, and flight is a silent admission of guilt. Examiners use this case to test treachery in a frontal, surprise attack on an unarmed victim, and to test the weight given to the trial court's factual findings and to the accused's uncorroborated defense.