PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUBEN CALIJAN Y MAGALSO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Smoking, it is said, is
hazardous to health. More, in some
peculiar way, it can be a death knell. This, the family of the late Gregorio Belnas realized when, smoking in
what appeared to be a ritual of friendship, he puffed his last. For, in that tobacco smoking session, his
erstwhile friend who invited him, Ruben Calijan y Magalso, knifed Gregorio to
death.

The evidence for the
government tends to establish that at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 30
June 1989, in Sitio Pinanginan, Barangay Obat, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental,
Arnolfo Baya was weeding at the sugarcane field. Ruben Calijan, a 39-year old farmer, passed by and persuaded
Arnolfo to accompany him to Felipe Nario’s place at the “tabuan”
(market fair). However, before
proceeding, they fetched Fredo Paunillan, another farmer. While at Fredo’s place, Ruben met Gerry
Camporedondo, took the latter’s six-inch hunting knife and tucked it to his
waist. Then they all proceeded to
Felipe’s house where Ruben drank one “lapad” of Anejo rum while
Arnolfo imbibed “tuba”. Ruben
played “hantak” (cara y cruz).^[1]

At seven in the evening, Ruben and Arnolfo moved to the house of
Francing Esia, walking slowly as the terrain was uphill, reaching there at
around 10:00 o’clock. Again they drank
“tuba”. By this time Ruben
had already consumed about a gallon of the native wine. Half an hour later, Ruben and Arnolfo headed
for home.^[2]

Enroute home, the duo passed the house of Gregorio Belnas, the
landlord of Arnolfo^[3]
back in Sitio Pinanginan, Barangay Obat. Standing at the front yard, Ruben called out to Gregorio: “Nong, let us smoke.”^[4]

After a brief while, Gregorio came down bringing with him a
lighted kerosene lamp and some tobacco leaves for smoking. They all sat down on a
bench by a bamboo table near a stove in the kitchen^[5] contiguous to the main house.^[6] Arnolfo and “Gorio” sat side by
side, with Ruben facing them. They
smoked for ten minutes. Then, for no
apparent reason, Ruben stood up saying, “Nong Gorio, you want to be
killed?” Completely taken aback, the 55-year old Gregorio could only
mutter: “I have not done any offense
against you, Ruben, because we have not quarreled with each other.” Ruben
replied, “If I want to kill you, I may kill you now.”^[7]

Arnolfo tried to pacify
Ruben saying, “Dong, do not do that; Dong, let us go home.” But Ruben
could not be dissuaded. Arnolfo stepped
back and Gregorio ran towards the door. But Ruben, being much younger, was quicker. He overtook Gregorio, held his left hand and stabbed him on his
left chest with the hunting knife he had earlier taken from Gerry.^[8] The stab wound proved to be fatal. Gregorio died of hemorrhage that same night.^[9] Seeing the fallen Gregorio, Arnolfo ran
away.^[10]

The ensuing events were
witnessed by Edwin Baya, brother of Arnolfo. Edwin recounted that between 11:00 o’clock and 12:00 o’clock midnight of
30 June 1989, Ruben went to his (Edwin) house and asked him, “Dong, come
with me because ‘Gorio’ is already dead.” So, together they
repaired to the house of Gregorio. Pointing to the prostrate victim, Ruben told Edwin to lift him because
they were going to throw the cadaver into the Sicopong River. Edwin refused but Ruben
threatened him with the hunting knife.^[11]

After disposing of the
corpse, Ruben and Edwin went to the house of Ruben’s relative, Walter Calijan,
and both slept there. Edwin heard Ruben
admitting to the wife of Walter that he (Ruben) killed Gregorio.^[12] Edwin left the following morning and
reported the incident to a CAFGU member who then formed a team to arrest Ruben and turn him over to the police.^[13]

On his part, as sole
witness for himself, Ruben Calijan denied responsibility for the death of
Gregorio. He pointed to the brothers
Arnolfo and Edwin Baya as the real killers. He testified that at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 30 June 1989,
after taking “tuba” in the house of Francing Esia, he walked
home. As he neared the river separating
the house of Gregorio and his, he heard him shouting for help. Immediately he went to
the house of Gregorio and saw Arnolfo and Edwin standing at the front yard looking down at the inert body of Gregorio. When he asked them what happened, they told him to go home as he
had nothing to do with the incident, and that Gregorio was a
“traitor” because the bamboo he had promised them was sold to
another.^[14]

After trial, the court gave more credence to the testimonies of
the Baya brothers,^[15]
declared Ruben guilty of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the heirs of
Gregorio Belnas in the amount of P30,000.00. Aside from the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and
treachery, the trial court considered the aggravating circumstance of adding
ignominy by throwing the cadaver of the victim into the river.^[16]

Obviously realizing the overwhelming evidence against him, the
accused, interestingly, opted to “adopt” on appeal the findings of
the court a quo as his own.^[17]
Thus, in a complete turnabout, Ruben now admits in his Appellant’s Brief that
he killed Gregorio Belnas on the night of 30 June 1989 and afterwards threw his
body into the Sicopong River with the help of Edwin Baya. He in fact prays that he be adjudged guilty
but only for homicide because there was neither treachery nor evident
premeditation that attended the killing, contrary to the conclusion of the
lower court.

After a careful
assessment of the evidence, we hold that the trial court erred in appreciating
treachery and evident premeditation as having qualified the crime to
murder. Consequently, the killing of
Gregorio Belnas was simple homicide aggravated by scoffing at the corpse and
mitigated on the other hand by intoxication that was not habitual.

Let it be emphasized that
aggravating circumstances, especially those which qualify criminal
resposibility, must be proved indubitably as the crime itself. Mere presumptions or inferences are never
enough.^[18]

In the absence of other
notorious acts evincing his determination to murder Gregorio, known
premeditation in the instant case cannot be deduced from the mere fact that six
(6) hours before he stabbed Gregorio to death, Ruben took the hunting knife of
Gerry. There is nothing in the records
to show that there was enmity between the two and it is not for the Court to
conjecture that there was. Indeed, it
is foolhardy for us to draw from this single act a cold-blooded intention to take
the life of another. We simply
characterize the killing as spur-of-the-moment, induced by that degree of intoxication which then triggered off the bellicosity in Ruben who, incidentally, is
known in the community as an ex-convict and a killer.^[19] Indeed, as disclosed by Arnolfo, before they
left Felipe’s place, Ruben got into a tiff with fellow “hantak”
players because after a particular game, Ruben forcibly gathered all the bets
amounting to P40.00.^[20] Quite obviously, Ruben was in a not­-so-pleasant
mood that night and was just itching to pick a quarrel with anyone. It just so happened that Gregorio got the
full brunt of it, resulting in his violent death.

Neither was there
treachery, given the open confrontation between the aggressor and the victim
moments before the actual stabbing. This placed Gregorio on guard because he actually attempted to escape by
running towards the door; only he was overtaken by Ruben.^[21]

The court a quo
likewise took into account the
“aggravating circumstance of adding ignominy on the victim by throwing his
cadaver (into) the river.”^[22] Strictly speaking, the act of disposing of a
cadaver into the river did not make the crime more shameful nor add to the
victim’s moral suffering since it was done after death had occurred and intended
more to conceal the effects of the felony.^[23] The correct aggravating circumstance
to be appreciated is scoffing at the corpse of the deceased, as provided in
Art. 248, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code, which is a qualifying
circumstance. However, since this
attendant circumstance was not expressly alleged in the Information, but only
proved at the trial, it should be treated merely as a generic aggravating
circumstance.

The penalty for homicide under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code
is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, and the generic aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the corpse being
offset by the mitigating circumstance of intoxication not otherwise habitual,
the maximum penalty should he taken from the medium period of the imposable
penalty, i.e., reclusion temporal, the range of the medium period of which is fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, while the minimum should be taken from the penalty next lower in
degree, in any of its periods, which is prision mayor, the
range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. After evaluating fully the evidence on
record, the Court resolves to impose upon the accused an indeterminate prison
term of eight (8) years, four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.

As regards the indemnity imposed by the court a quo in the
amount of P30,000.00, the same
should be increased to P50,000.00 conformably
with established jurisprudence.^[24]

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused RUBEN CALIJAN Y
MAGALSO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE, instead of
murder, and imposes upon him an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years,
four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium, as minimum,
to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion
temporal medium, as maximum.

The accused is further directed to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Gregorio Belnas in the increased amount of P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on official
leave.

^[1]
TSN, 14 March 1990, pp. 3-6, 8.

^[2]
Id, pp. 8-9.

^[3]
TSN, 14 March 1990, p. 22.

^[4]
Id, pp. 9-10.

^[5]
TSN, 14 March 1990, p. 25.

^[6]
Id, p. 13.

^[7]
Id, pp. 11-12.

^[8]
Id, pp. 12-14.

^[9]
Exh. “B”, Records, p. 11.

^[10]
TSN, 14 March 1990, p. 14.

^[11]
Id, pp. 35-38.

^[12]
Id, pp. 40–41.

^[13]
Exh. “1”, Records, pp. 7-8.

^[14]
TSN, 3 April 1990, pp. 6-8.

^[15]
Witness Gerry Camporedondo gave
corroborative testimony. The widow,
Teodocia, was called only to testify on the victim’s burial expenses.

^[16]
Penned by Judge Constancio E. Jaugan,
Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Br. 36, Records, pp. 57-60.

^[17]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 2 and 6.

^[18]
People v. Uy, G.R. No. 84275, 14
February 1992, 206 SCRA 270; People v. Sarmiento, 118 Phil. 266
(1963).

^[19]
TSN, 14 March 1990, p. 24

^[20]
Id, pp. 23-24.

^[21]
People v. Hatague, G. R. No.
97308, 7 April 1992, 207 SCRA 779.

^[22]
See Note 14, p. 60.

^[23]
People v. Obenque, G. R. No.
57893, 30 January 1987 147 SCRA 488. See also People v. Carmina, G. R. No. 81404, 28 January 1991, 193
SCRA 429.

^[24]
Resolution, En Banc, 30 August 1990;
People v. Sison, G.R. No. 86455,
14 September 1990, 189 SCRA 643; People v. Bartolay, G.R.
No. 83696, 21 December 1990, 192 SCRA 621.