People of the Philippines vs. Benito Lababo

Circumstantial evidence may sustain a conviction for murder and frustrated murder where the proven circumstances form an unbroken chain pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator; and conspiracy may be established by the accused's armed presence near the actual gunman, which lends moral support and ensures no interference. A minor convicted of a heinous crime is nevertheless entitled to automatic suspension of sentence under RA 9344.

Benito, Wenefredo, Junior, and FFF, all surnamed Lababo, were charged with murder and frustrated murder in Catarman, Northern Samar. Benito and Wenefredo are brothers of BBB, and AAA is BBB's son; a boundary dispute between BBB and his brothers was suggested as a possible motive. FFF was 17 years old at the time of the alleged crimes, which implicated the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344).

Benito, Wenefredo, Junior, and FFF, all surnamed Lababo, were charged with Murder in Criminal Case No. C-4460 for the death of AAA, and Benito and Wenefredo were separately charged with Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. C-4479 for the injuries sustained by BBB. The Information for Murder alleged that on October 27, 2007, at about 3:00 p.m. in Northern Samar, the accused conspired, armed with an unlicensed homemade shotgun known as a "bardog" and a long bolo, and with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, attacked and shot AAA, causing his death. The Information for Frustrated Murder alleged that Benito and Wenefredo, armed with a homemade shotgun, conspired and attacked BBB with treachery and evident premeditation, performing all acts of execution that could have produced murder but for timely medical attendance, with the aggravating circumstance of an unlicensed firearm.

According to the prosecution, on October 27, 2007, at around 3:00 p.m., BBB, his wife CCC, and their son AAA alighted from a motorcycle in front of Benito's house, about fifty meters from their residence, and proceeded toward their house. A few minutes later, CCC heard a gunshot and a child's scream from near Benito's house. When she went outside, she saw BBB and AAA lying on the ground, wounded. Benito was nearby holding a 29-inch "bardog," together with Wenefredo, FFF, and Junior, all armed with bolos. Jesus Caparal corroborated that after hearing gunshots, he saw Benito holding the "bardog" and the three others each holding a bolo while AAA and BBB lay on the ground; he reported the incident to the Barangay Tanod. CCC ran to Barangay Malobago for help from Vice Mayor Diodato Bantilo, who returned with her to the crime scene; CCC lost consciousness. Vice Mayor Bantilo brought the victims to the hospital. AAA was declared dead on arrival. BBB survived gunshot wounds on his left wrist, right leg, and left buttock but was confined for one month. DDD, CCC's adopted daughter, reported the incident to the police.

Dr. Candelaria Castillo issued a Post Mortem Report stating that AAA sustained a single but fatal gunshot wound on his back, injuring his lungs, causing cardiopulmonary arrest and immediate death. In the Medico-Legal Certificate for BBB, the doctor stated that he sustained eight non-fatal gunshot wounds in different parts of his body, indicating he was moving at the time of the shooting, and that without timely medical attention he would have died. CCC suggested that the possible cause of the shooting was a boundary dispute between BBB and his brothers, Benito and Wenefredo.

The defense denied the charges. Wenefredo claimed he was fishing with Rudy Castro at the time and learned of the shooting around 6:00 p.m. when DDD came to his house to borrow money for hospital expenses. Benito claimed he was at home fixing his motorcycle with FFF's help when the incident happened; he said their house was at least twelve kilometers away from the place, he learned of the incident three days later, and he was not involved in the boundary dispute. FFF claimed he was helping with chores in their house on the day of the incident.

The trial court found that although there was no eyewitness to the actual commission of the crime, the combination of circumstantial evidence pointed to the accused-appellants as the perpetrators and conspirators. The prosecution established that gunshots accompanied by a child's scream were heard near Benito's house; the victims were seen lying on the ground, wounded; Benito was seen standing near them holding a 29-inch "bardog" with Wenefredo, FFF, and Junior armed with bolos; AAA died from a single gunshot wound to the back; and BBB sustained eight gunshot wounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed these factual findings.

• Challenge to Conviction: Accused-appellants maintained that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that they were guilty of the crimes charged.
• Denial and Alibi of Wenefredo: Wenefredo denied the charge and claimed that he was fishing with Rudy Castro at the time of the incident and learned of the shooting only around 6:00 p.m. when DDD came to his house to borrow money for hospital expenses.
• Denial and Alibi of Benito: Benito denied the charge and claimed that he was at home fixing his motorcycle with FFF's help when the incident happened; he asserted that their house was at least twelve kilometers away, that he learned of the incident three days later, and that he was not involved in the boundary dispute.
• Denial of FFF: FFF denied the charge and claimed that he was helping with chores in their house on the day of the incident.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that Benito was guilty of murder and frustrated murder based on circumstantial evidence.
• Conspiracy: Whether Wenefredo and FFF conspired with Benito in the commission of the crimes charged.
• Penalty for FFF: Whether the CA correctly modified the penalty imposed on FFF, a minor at the time of the crime.
• Suspended Sentence: Whether FFF is entitled to a suspended sentence under Section 38 of RA 9344.
• Damages: Whether the damages awarded should be modified in accordance with People vs. Jugueta.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: No error. Conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence where there is more than one circumstance, the facts are proven, and the combination produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt; the circumstances pointed to Benito to the exclusion of others.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established; Wenefredo and FFF, by standing near the victims while armed with bolos, lent moral support to Benito and ensured no interference.
• Penalty for FFF: Yes. The CA correctly applied Article 68(2) of the RPC; FFF was 17 at the time, so the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua was imposed.
• Suspended Sentence: Yes. Section 38 of RA 9344 mandates automatic suspension of sentence for a child in conflict with the law, regardless of the imposable penalty; the case is remanded for disposition under Section 51.
• Damages: Yes. The damages were modified to conform to People vs. Jugueta: P100,000 each for murder and P75,000 each for frustrated murder.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The elements of murder are that a person was killed, the accused killed him, the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance in Article 248, and the killing is not parricide or infanticide. AAA's death was undisputed, and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. Treachery was present because AAA, an unarmed minor, sustained a single fatal gunshot wound on his back, the attack being sudden and unexpected and leaving him no opportunity to defend himself. For BBB, the eight gunshot wounds would have caused death absent timely medical attention; the attack was sudden, and BBB was unarmed and unable to deflect it. The crime was frustrated because the offender performed all acts of execution that could produce murder but death did not result for a cause independent of his will, namely timely medical attendance. No eyewitness testified to the actual shooting, but circumstantial evidence established that gunshots and a child's scream were heard near Benito's house; the victims were seen lying wounded; Benito was seen standing near them holding a 29-inch "bardog" with Wenefredo, FFF, and Junior armed with bolos; AAA died from a single gunshot wound to the back; and BBB sustained eight gunshot wounds. No evidence showed another person with a firearm who could have fired the shots. The trial court's factual findings, affirmed by the CA, are conclusive absent ignored or misconstrued cogent facts, and no such exception applied. Thus, Benito was correctly found guilty.

• Conspiracy: Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The requisites are that two or more persons came to an agreement, the agreement concerned the commission of a crime, and the execution of the felony was decided upon. Conspiracy is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. An overt act is necessary, which may consist of active participation in the crime or moral assistance by being present or exerting moral ascendancy. Mere presence at the scene without active participation is insufficient, but Wenefredo and FFF's act of standing near the victims and Benito while wielding bolos was not mere presence. Their staying in close proximity while Benito executed the crime served to lend moral support by ensuring no one could interfere and prevent the crime's successful perpetration. Their presence encouraged Benito and increased the odds against the victims, especially since they were all wielding lethal weapons. One who participates by standing guard or lending moral support is criminally responsible to the same extent as the actual perpetrator. Thus, the three conspired to commit the crimes charged.

• Penalty for FFF: The CA correctly took into account FFF's minority, he being 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. Under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, a person over 15 and under 18 is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, and the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Pursuant to RA No. 9346, which proscribes the death penalty, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. Applying Article 68(2), the imposable penalty is reduced by one degree to reclusion temporal. Being a divisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. The minimum is taken from the full range of prision mayor, which is six years and one day to twelve years, and the maximum is imposed in the medium period of reclusion temporal, which is 14 years, eight months, and one day to 17 years and four months. The CA thus correctly imposed six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The penalties imposed on Benito and Wenefredo for Murder and Frustrated Murder were undisturbed.

• Suspended Sentence: FFF, being a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, should benefit from a suspended sentence under Section 38 of RA 9344. That provision states that once a child under 18 at the time of the offense is found guilty, the court shall determine civil liability but, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall place the child under suspended sentence without need of application, even if the child is already 18 or more at the time of pronouncement. Section 38 applies regardless of the imposable penalty because RA 9344 does not distinguish between a minor convicted of a capital offense and one convicted of a lesser offense; the Court should not distinguish and should apply automatic suspension even to a child found guilty of a heinous crime. The age at promulgation is immaterial; what matters is that the offender committed the offense while still of tender age. The welfare of a child in conflict with the law extends even to one who has exceeded 21 years, so long as the crime was committed while still a child. FFF may be confined in an agricultural camp or other training facility under Section 51 of RA 9344, and the case was remanded to the court of origin to effect confinement in accordance with People vs. Sarcia.

• Damages: The damages awarded for both crimes were modified following People vs. Jugueta. For murder, where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties and the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346, the amounts are P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. For frustrated murder, the amounts are P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Section 6 of RA 9344 expressly provides that a child in conflict with the law is still civilly liable for the crime committed, so FFF shall pay the same amount of damages as his co-accused-appellants. Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. C-4460, each accused-appellant was ordered to pay P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No. C-4479, Benito and Wenefredo were ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil damages, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

• Circumstantial Evidence — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances form an unbroken chain resulting in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. The Court applied this rule because no eyewitness testified to the actual shooting, but the proven circumstances—gunshots near Benito's house, the wounded victims, Benito holding a "bardog" near them, and the absence of any other firearm-wielder—pointed to Benito as the gunman.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — There is treachery when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense the offended party might make. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, it must be shown that the malefactor employed such means, method, or manner of execution as to ensure his safety from the victim's defensive or retaliatory acts, and that the means, method, or manner were deliberately adopted. It must be present at the inception of the attack. The Court applied treachery to AAA's killing because AAA, an unarmed minor, sustained a single fatal gunshot wound on his back, the attack being sudden and unexpected and leaving him defenseless.

• Frustrated Felony — A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. The Court applied this to BBB's shooting because Benito performed all acts of execution that could have caused BBB's death, but BBB survived due to timely medical attention, a cause independent of Benito's will.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The requisites are: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement; (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a crime; and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Conspiracy is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. An overt act is required, which may consist of active participation in the crime or moral assistance by being present or exerting moral ascendancy. The Court applied this to Wenefredo and FFF, whose armed presence near the actual gunman constituted moral support.

• Moral Support as Overt Act in Conspiracy — Mere presence at the scene of the crime without active participation is insufficient to prove conspiracy. However, an accused's act of staying in close proximity while the actual perpetrator executes the crime, especially while armed, may serve no other purpose than to lend moral support by ensuring no one could interfere and prevent the successful perpetration of the crime. One who participates in the material execution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral support is criminally responsible to the same extent as the actual perpetrator. The Court applied this to Wenefredo and FFF, who stood near the victims and Benito while wielding bolos.

• Privileged Mitigating Circumstance of Minority — Under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, a person over 15 and under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, and the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. The Court applied this to FFF, who was 17 years old at the time of the crime, reducing the penalty for murder from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal, and then applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Automatic Suspension of Sentence for Children in Conflict with the Law — Under Section 38 of RA 9344, once a child under 18 at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty, the court shall determine civil liability but, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall place the child under suspended sentence without need of application. Suspension applies even if the child is already 18 or more at the time of pronouncement. The provision applies regardless of the imposable penalty and does not distinguish between a minor convicted of a capital offense and one convicted of a lesser offense. The Court applied this to FFF, ordering automatic suspension of sentence and remand for disposition under Section 51 of RA 9344.

• Civil Liability of a Child in Conflict with the Law — Section 6 of RA 9344 provides that the exemption from criminal liability of a child in conflict with the law does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. The Court applied this to FFF, holding that he is still civilly liable for the crime committed and shall pay the same amount of damages as his co-accused-appellants.

• Damages in Murder and Frustrated Murder — Following People vs. Jugueta, for murder where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346, the damages are P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. For frustrated murder, the damages are P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The Court applied these amounts in modifying the awards.

• "Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator." — This passage states the controlling requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which the Court applied to uphold Benito's conviction despite the absence of an eyewitness.

• "To Our mind, their overt act of staying in close proximity while Benito executes the crime served no other purpose than to lend moral support by ensuring that no one could interfere and prevent the successful perpetration thereof." — This passage articulates the Court's ratio for finding conspiracy: Wenefredo and FFF's armed presence was an overt act of moral support, not mere presence.

• "It is well to recall that Section 38 of the law applies regardless of the imposable penalty, since R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been convicted of a capital offense and another who has been convicted of a lesser offense. We, therefore, should also not distinguish and should apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a heinous crime." — This passage defines the scope of the automatic suspension of sentence under RA 9344 and was applied to FFF despite his conviction for murder.

• "There is treachery or alevosia 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 any defense which the offended party might make." — This passage defines treachery, the qualifying circumstance that raised the killing of AAA to murder.

• People vs. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011 — Cited for the requirements and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction.
• People vs. Camat, G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012 — Cited for the definition and elements of treachery or alevosia.
• Bahilidad vs. People, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 597 — Cited for the basic principles on conspiracy, including that conspiracy is not presumed and requires an overt act.
• People vs. Campos, G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 2011 — Cited for the rule that one who participates by standing guard or lending moral support is criminally responsible to the same extent as the actual perpetrator.
• People vs. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015 — Cited for the application of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and the automatic suspension of sentence under RA 9344.
• People vs. Sarcia, 615 Phil. 97, 128 (2009) — Cited for the confinement of a child in conflict with the law in an agricultural camp or other training facility under Section 51 of RA 9344.
• People vs. Jacinto, 661 Phil. 224 (2011) — Cited for the rule that the welfare of a child in conflict with the law extends even to one who has exceeded 21 years, so long as the crime was committed while still a child.
• People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 — Cited for the modified amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for murder and frustrated murder.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder. The Court applied it because the killing of AAA was attended by treachery, a qualifying circumstance.
• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy. The Court applied it to hold that Wenefredo and FFF conspired with Benito.
• Article 68(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority for a person over 15 and under 18, requiring imposition of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law. The Court applied it to FFF.
• Article 76, Revised Penal Code — Governs the periods of divisible penalties. The Court used it to determine the medium period of reclusion temporal for FFF's maximum penalty.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Proscribes the imposition of the death penalty. The Court applied it to reduce the imposable penalty for murder to reclusion perpetua.
• Section 38, Republic Act No. 9344 — Provides for the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law. The Court applied it to FFF.
• Section 51, Republic Act No. 9344 — Allows confinement of a child in conflict with the law in an agricultural camp or other training facility. The Court ordered remand for this purpose.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344 — Provides that a child in conflict with the law is not exempt from civil liability. The Court applied it to hold FFF civilly liable for damages.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied because reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty, to determine the minimum and maximum terms of FFF's indeterminate sentence.

Bersamin, Leonen, Martires, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.