PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO “EDDIE” ROBEDILLO, ARTEMIO “ARTEM” YEPES, ARTEMIO “ARTEM” NOVIO, AND ANACLETO “YONTONG” NOVIO, ACCUSED, EDUARDO “EDDIE…

People versus Robedillo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Eduardo Robedillo, Artemio Yepes, Artemio Novio, and Anacleto Novio for the killing of Martiano Cinco. The information charged murder, qualified by treachery and by taking advantage of superior strength, committed with conspiracy. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean teaching vehicle on three points: how conspiracy supplies the qualifying circumstance of superior strength even when the attackers strike in turns, how flight after conviction may be taken as an indication of guilt, and how the civil indemnity for death is adjusted to current jurisprudence on appeal.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of the Eighth Judicial Region in Palo, Leyte tried the case. Artemio Novio was never tried because he remained at large. The trial court convicted Eduardo Robedillo, Artemio Yepes, and Anacleto Novio of murder, sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of Martiano Cinco in the amount of 30,000 pesos. The three convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Court noted that Artemio Yepes had died in September 1989, the same month the trial court promulgated its decision, and that Anacleto Novio had jumped bail and remained unapprehended despite warrants issued in November 1989 and January 1990. The Court dismissed the appeals of Yepes and of Anacleto Novio, leaving only the appeal of Eduardo Robedillo for resolution on the merits.

Facts

At about four in the afternoon of May 30, 1988, Sammy Cinco, then sixteen years old, and his father Martiano Cinco went to the house of Felicisimo Novio in Tolosa, Leyte, upon the invitation of Artemio Novio, who said there was a party. Among the other guests were the four accused. After eating, Sammy waited outside under a jackfruit tree. He then saw his father jump out of the house through the balcony and run past him, pursued by the four accused, all armed with bolos. His father was wounded on the back and bleeding profusely.

The four caught up with Martiano in a nearby ricefield. From behind some ornamental plants, Sammy saw his father kneeling with both hands raised, pleading for mercy, surrounded by his captors. Artemio and Anacleto Novio began the assault from the front, followed closely by Eduardo Robedillo with hacking blows to the victim's right, while Artemio Yepes stabbed him from behind. The four took turns striking Martiano until he fell face first to the ground. Sammy fled home to report the incident.

Eufrocina Cinco, the victim's common-law wife, testified that their house was about one hundred meters from the house where her husband and Sammy had gone. Hearing shouts, she went out and saw her husband kneeling some eighty meters away, hands raised, surrounded by the four accused, all armed with bolos. She covered her eyes, then looked again and saw the four men hacking at the victim. She saw Martiano hit the ground as Robedillo continued attacking him even after the other three had left. Robedillo then walked toward her house and shouted, who else is aggrieved, and she answered that it was enough, as he had already killed her husband. She suspected resentment because her husband had filed a complaint against Robedillo for theft of a pig. The post-mortem examination by the municipal health officer found eleven wounds on various parts of the body, and the cause of death was hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple stab wounds.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused of murder instead of the lesser offense of homicide, in light of the claim that the qualifying circumstance of superior strength cannot be appreciated where the accused delivered blows alternately and one after the other.
• Whether or not the appeal of Anacleto Novio should be dismissed, and whether or not his flight after conviction may be considered as an indication of guilt.
• Whether or not the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim should be increased.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 125, Section 1, in relation to Rule 124, Section 8, governs the dismissal of the appeal of an accused who escapes custody or jumps bail:

Whenever a person under detention escapes or evades the jurisdiction of the court, or escapes from prison or custody, the court shall dismiss the appeal.

This provision bears on the case because Anacleto Novio jumped bail and remained unapprehended, so his appeal was dismissed pursuant to it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the argument has no merit. The accused relied on the earlier Narciso ruling, where the use of superior strength was not appreciated because the accused delivered blows alternately and one after the other. The Court distinguished that case: in Narciso there was neither allegation nor proof of conspiracy, nor proof that the accused took advantage of their number. Here, the evidence clearly showed that the accused acted in concert to kill the victim. The Court ruled that it is unnecessary for the prosecution to show a previous agreement to take advantage of numerical superiority, because conspiracy does not require a previous plan or agreement to commit assault; it is sufficient if, at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack. Even though the accused alternated in striking the victim, the proximity in time of the individual blows, delivered as they surrounded him so as to block his escape and prevent him from defending himself, demonstrated the collective force they employed. The conspiracy to use superior strength resulting from their greater number was shown by the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses and by the number and nature of the stab wounds.

On the second issue, the Court dismissed the appeal of Anacleto Novio pursuant to Rule 125, Section 1, in relation to Rule 124, Section 8, because he jumped bail. Although the appeal was dismissed, the Court still reviewed the evidence as to him. His claim of lack of motive could not prevail against the positive identification by the two eyewitnesses, and his escape after conviction was an indication of his guilt. The Court put it in the words of the proverb, that the guilty fleeth even when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as the lion. The appeal of Artemio Yepes was dismissed as a consequence of his death.

On the third issue, the Court held that, given the time caused by the appeal, it is just and equitable to raise the civil indemnity awarded by the trial court in 1989 to that currently prevailing under recent jurisprudence, which is 50,000 pesos.

Doctrine

Conspiracy does not require a previous plan or agreement to commit the assault; it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack. Where conspiracy is established, the qualifying circumstance of superior strength may be appreciated even if the accused struck their victim alternately and one after the other, because the proximity in time of the blows, delivered while they surrounded the victim to block his escape and prevent his defense, shows the collective force they employed. The guilty flight of an accused after conviction is an indication of guilt and cannot prevail against positive identification by eyewitnesses. An accused who jumps bail forfeits his appeal, which must be dismissed under Rule 125, Section 1, in relation to Rule 124, Section 8. The civil indemnity for death is adjusted to current jurisprudence on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting Eduardo Robedillo of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the modification that the civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim was increased from 30,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos, and directed the trial court to order the arrest of Anacleto Novio and the forfeiture of his bail bond, and the commitment of Eduardo Robedillo to the Bureau of Corrections.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that conspiracy supplies the qualifying circumstance of superior strength even when the attackers strike alternately, because the law looks to their common intent and collective force, not to the sequence of blows. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction from the Narciso ruling and to test whether a candidate knows that an accused who jumps bail loses his appeal.