People of the Philippines vs. David Abejuela, et al.

A killing is murder when treachery qualifies it, even if the accused did not intend to kill; lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed is merely mitigating and may offset recidivism to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Ramon and David Abejuela are brothers. Blas Pacete was a rural policeman. Both accused had been previously convicted by final judgment of Serious Physical Injuries in Criminal Case No. 949 on July 5, 1962, a fact alleged to establish recidivism. The prosecution invoked the Revised Penal Code provisions on murder and aggravating circumstances.

On the evening of November 6, 1968, a benefit dance was held at the cockpit in Barrio Sinabuagan, Valencia, Bukidnon, under the auspices of the barrio council of Lumbayao, headed by Barrio Captain Melanio Lailidag. Blas Pacete, a rural policeman, was present to maintain peace and order. The dance started at about 9:00 p.m. and was attended by about 80 persons. Among those present were David Abejuela and Petronilo Lozano, who came together.

After a “special piece” given in honor of David Abejuela, Petronilo Lozano, and other persons, an intermission for refreshments was called, during which the sale of flower boxes would be conducted. Blas Pacete left the dance hall to answer the call of nature. While urinating at the foot of a “dinog” tree near the gate of the cockpit, Ramon Abejuela and Angel Agbayani arrived, riding on a carabao. Ramon told Angel to tie the carabao to the “dinog” tree. Upon seeing the carabao tethered there, Pacete told Angel to remove it, saying it was near the gate and people might be gored. David came out and told Pacete that the carabao was his; Pacete replied, “So, that is yours,” and returned to the dance hall. David held him by the hand and pulled Pacete towards him, saying, “Are you the tough person here?” Pacete held on to a post with his other hand. At that juncture, Ramon shot Pacete from behind with a “paltik” pistol using a “de viente” shotgun shell, hitting Pacete’s left leg. David then pushed Pacete, who fell, exclaiming, “Agoy, help.” David pulled out a similar pistol and shot Pacete, but Pacete was not hit as he rolled away.

As people scampered for safety, Petronilo Lozano entered the arena and fired at the people indiscriminately; his shot hit Elpidio Capio. Juanito Mensalbas saw his brother-in-law hit and pulled Capio towards a post. Upon seeing Mensalbas dragging Capio, David fired at him but hit Petronilo Lozano at the back instead, who shouted, “Agoy, why is it that you shot me?” David went to Lozano and mollified him, and then they fled from the dance hall and hid in the mill of one Mr. Caluya, where they found Ramon Abejuela and Angel Agbayani also hiding. After the shooting stopped, Corirado Nabaja, Serafin Verde, and others came out and helped Blas Pacete. They put a tourniquet around his left leg above the knee to stanch the flow of blood and brought him to the house of Ananias Pacete, where his wound was washed with soap and warm water. Blas Pacete was also given a penicillin tablet. The next day, he was brought to the Bukidnon Provincial Hospital where he was examined and his wound treated. On December 6, 1968, however, Blas Pacete died due to his injuries. A medical certificate stated that he died of shock, irreversible, due to external hemorrhage, due to compound fracture of the left leg, secondary to gunshot wound, with multiple gunshot wounds and compound fracture of the tibia and fibula. An information was then filed against David and Ramon Abejuela charging them with Murder, committed on or about November 6, 1968, in Barrio Sinabuagan, Valencia, Bukidnon. The information alleged that they, with intent to kill, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, and by means of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, with the use of firearms, shot Blas Pacete, inflicting the wounds that caused his death. It further alleged that both accused were recidivists, having been previously convicted by final judgment of Serious Physical Injuries in Criminal Case No. 949 on July 5, 1962, by the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon.

Ramon Abejuela denied having shot Blas Pacete. He claimed he arrived at the cockpit at about 10:00 p.m. with Angel Agbayani, riding on a carabao, and was met by David outside. While they were talking, he heard Angel call that their carabao had been kicked by a man. David went to Angel and talked with the person who kicked the carabao, later identified as Blas Pacete. Although worried about the carabao, Ramon did not move from where he was standing and could not hear the conversation. Not long thereafter, he saw David grappling with Pacete near the gate. He demonstrated that David held Pacete with his left hand holding Pacete’s right hand near the elbow and his right hand holding Pacete at the left wrist, pulling Pacete. He then heard an explosion which he believed came from his brother. Because of worry and fear, he ran away with Angel towards the road to Valencia. While running, he heard gunshots coming from the direction of the cockpit. They hid in the mill of Mr. Caluya, and not long thereafter David and Petronilo Lozano arrived. The following morning they went to Valencia.

David Abejuela claimed that it was he who shot Blas Pacete. He declared that he arrived at the dance hall at about 9:00 p.m. and just watched the dancers. At about 10:00 p.m., his elder brother Ramon and Angel Agbayani arrived, riding on a carabao. He went outside to meet his brother. Angel tethered the carabao to a “dinog” tree and saw a person kick the carabao. Angel reported the incident to him, saying, “What is this Nong, our carabao was kicked?” He immediately confronted the person and asked why he kicked the carabao when it was tied to a “dinog” tree and there was nothing it could destroy. The man, later identified as Blas Pacete, did not answer and just mumbled, “Linte, linte, why did you tie your carabao on this dinog tree where there are plants that are destroyed.” He looked around and saw no plants, only cogon grasses. Pacete then held him and tried to pull him inside the cockpit; because he did not know Pacete, he was worried, tried to get free, and pushed him. He then saw Pacete get something from his waist which was surely a weapon. He immediately pulled out his “de veinte” “paltik” pistol and shot Pacete, then sought cover behind the “dinog” tree. He heard several shots, about twenty, after which he noticed his companion Petronilo Lozano moaning, saying he was shot. He brought Lozano to the mill of Mr. Caluya, where he found Ramon and Angel Agbayani. The next morning, they went to Valencia to file a complaint against Blas Pacete and others. He denied that Ramon shot Blas Pacete while he and Pacete were grappling near the gate, because if that were so, he would have also sustained gunshot wounds since the 20-gauge firearm used shotgun ammunition with many pellets; besides, he had not noticed Ramon carry a firearm and had no knowledge if he had any.

The trial court did not believe the defendants. It found that both accused were criminally responsible for the killing. The circumstances showed that they cooperated with each other in an unprovoked aggression. David cooperated by provoking the deceased, whom he tried to drag outside the cockpit, and by shooting him with his own gun after the victim was felled by Ramon’s shot and missed only because the deceased rolled on the ground. The shooting of the victim from behind by Ramon as he resisted David’s effort to drag him outside the cockpit was clearly characterized by treachery. The position of the wound, which entered behind the left kneecap and went out in front, left no room for doubt that the deceased was shot from the rear, demolishing David’s claim of self-defense. Ramon’s mere denial could not prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who saw him deliver the fatal shot. The testimonies of Angel Agbayani and Melanio Lailidag for the defense were not given credence because both appeared biased, especially Lailidag, who gave an entirely different version in his sworn statement to the municipal judge of Valencia when investigated on December 19, 1968. The killing, qualified by treachery, was aggravated by recidivism on the part of both accused, who were both sentenced for Serious Physical Injuries on July 5, 1962 and had already served their sentence. David’s voluntary surrender entitled him to a mitigation of his offense.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Ramon Abejuela assailed the trial court for believing the prosecution witnesses, particularly impugning the testimony of Juanito Mensalbas as unworthy because of his relationship with the deceased and his inconsistent statement, and the testimony of Conrado Nabaja for contradictions.
• Sole Responsibility of David Abejuela: Ramon maintained that David Abejuela alone was accountable for the death of Blas Pacete and that he did not participate in the commission of the crime.
• Treachery: Ramon argued that the trial court erred in appreciating treachery as an aggravating circumstance.
• Conspiracy and Evident Premeditation: Ramon claimed that there was no conspiracy and no evident premeditation in the commission of the crime.
• Medical Negligence: Ramon contended that the lower court erred in not appreciating the negligence of the doctor of the Bukidnon Hospital, which helped in the early death of the victim.
• Caliber of Firearms: Ramon argued that the lower court did not take cognizance of the caliber of the guns used; he theorized that if he had shot Blas Pacete while the latter was grappling with David at a distance of about one meter, David would have also suffered gunshot wounds, and that if David had shot the victim, the pellets would not have spread due to the closeness of the actor and the victim.
• Lack of Intent to Kill: Ramon advanced the theory that had he really shot Blas Pacete, the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted, and the manner it was inflicted negated Murder, because he showed no intent to kill.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Juanito Mensalbas and Conrado Nabaja despite the former’s relationship to the deceased and alleged inconsistencies.
• Sole Responsibility of David Abejuela: Whether Ramon Abejuela participated in the killing or whether David Abejuela alone was responsible.
• Treachery: Whether treachery was correctly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
• Conspiracy and Evident Premeditation: Whether conspiracy and evident premeditation attended the killing.
• Medical Negligence: Whether the alleged negligence of the Bukidnon Hospital doctor affected Ramon Abejuela’s criminal liability.
• Caliber of Firearms: Whether the caliber of the guns used negated the finding that Ramon Abejuela shot the victim.
• Lack of Intent to Kill and Penalty: Whether Ramon Abejuela’s lack of intent to kill negated murder or warranted a mitigating circumstance reducing the death penalty.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to deference, and the relationship of Juanito Mensalbas to the deceased did not disqualify him; the inconsistencies were minor and did not show coaching.
• Sole Responsibility of David Abejuela: No. Positive testimonies and the physical facts showed Ramon Abejuela shot Blas Pacete from behind while David held the victim’s arm; Ramon’s denial could not prevail.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery was correctly considered as the qualifying circumstance because the victim was shot from behind while held by a co-accused, was unarmed, and the attack was sudden and unexpected with no risk to the assailant.
• Conspiracy and Evident Premeditation: Conspiracy, yes; evident premeditation, no. Unity of purpose and community of design appeared from the concerted acts and flight, but no sufficient time intervened for cool deliberation.
• Medical Negligence: No. The assailant is not relieved of responsibility where the wound inflicted was dangerous and calculated to destroy life, even if the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical treatment.
• Caliber of Firearms: No. The caliber of the guns was immaterial in view of the positive testimony that Ramon shot the victim, and no ballistics expert supported the appellant’s claim.
• Lack of Intent to Kill and Penalty: Lack of intent to kill did not negate murder because treachery qualified the killing, but lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong was mitigating and offset recidivism, reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The Supreme Court reiterated that assigning values to witness testimony is best performed by trial judges, who can weigh demeanor, conduct, and attitude at trial; their factual findings may not be overturned unless they overlooked or failed to consider facts of weight and importance that could have materially affected the conclusion. The fact that Juanito Mensalbas was related to the deceased did not disqualify him or render his testimony utterly devoid of belief, absent an improper motive to testify falsely. The contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by Ramon referred to minor details and were not of such magnitude as to show that the witnesses were coached or tutored. Thus, the trial court’s credibility findings were sustained.

• Sole Responsibility of David Abejuela: The claim that David alone was responsible was inconsistent with the truth and the physical facts. Conrado Nabaja, Juanito Mensalbas, and Esequio Taghap categorically declared that Ramon shot Blas Pacete from behind while David was holding Pacete by the arm and Pacete was holding on to a post with his other hand. The nature of the gunshot wound—entry at the back of the knee cap and exit at the front of the leg, with fracture of the leg bones, maceration of skin and muscles, and protrusion of the tibia—belied David’s claim that he shot Pacete in self-defense while they were facing each other. Ramon’s mere denial could not prevail over positive testimony.

• Treachery: Treachery was considered as the qualifying circumstance, not merely aggravating. It was evident from the fact that Blas Pacete was shot from behind by Ramon while David was holding Pacete’s arm, pulling him, and Pacete was holding on to a post with his other hand. Pacete was unarmed, the attack was sudden and unexpected, and there was no risk at all to the assailant. The trial court therefore correctly appreciated treachery.

• Conspiracy and Evident Premeditation: The unity of purpose and community of design was apparent from the fact that Ramon shot Blas Pacete while David was holding Pacete’s arm; that David also shot Pacete when the latter fell after being shot by Ramon; and that they fled from the scene, hid in the mill of Mr. Caluya, and went together to Valencia the following morning to file a complaint against Blas Pacete and others. Conspiracy was thus established. Evident premeditation, however, was not, because their meeting with Blas Pacete was not sought after and no sufficient period of time intervened between the conception of the killing and its perpetration for the accused to have made a cool and circumspect deliberation of the consequences of their intended act.

• Medical Negligence: The contention that the doctor’s negligence helped cause the victim’s early death was without merit. The general rule is that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment. The gravity of the wound was apparent: the leg bones were fractured, the skin and muscles were macerated, and amputation of the leg was necessitated.

• Caliber of Firearms: The caliber of the guns used was immaterial in view of the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses that Ramon shot Blas Pacete. Besides, Ramon did not present a ballistics expert to sustain his claim that with the type of ammunition used—which shattered the leg bones—the shotgun shell contained only tiny pellets, such that David, standing about a meter away, would have also sustained gunshot wounds.

• Lack of Intent to Kill and Penalty: The circumstances showed that Ramon did not intend to kill Blas Pacete because the shot was directed toward the calf of the leg and not toward a vital part of the body. Nonetheless, he was responsible for the consequences of his act, which was the death of Blas Pacete. If he had not assaulted Pacete in a treacherous manner, he would have been guilty only of homicide; because the act was committed with treachery, he was guilty of murder due to the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed could only be considered a mitigating circumstance. The trial court correctly found Ramon guilty of murder qualified by treachery and attended by recidivism, but erred in imposing the death penalty because the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong offset the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Reclusion perpetua was the proper penalty.

• Credibility of Witnesses and Trial Court Findings — The assessment of witness credibility is best performed by trial judges because they can observe the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of witnesses at trial. Their factual findings are generally binding on appeal and may not be overturned unless they overlooked or failed to consider facts of weight and importance that could materially affect the conclusion. Relationship to a party does not disqualify a witness, and minor inconsistencies do not destroy credibility absent a showing of improper motive or coaching.

• Treachery as a Qualifying Circumstance — Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, treachery was present because the victim was shot from behind while a co-accused held his arm, the victim was unarmed, and the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving no risk to the assailant.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing unity of purpose and community of design. The Court found conspiracy from Ramon’s shooting the victim while David held him, David’s subsequent shooting at the fallen victim, and their flight and joint departure to Valencia the next morning.

• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. It was not established because the meeting with the victim was not sought and no sufficient time intervened for cool deliberation.

• Lack of Intention to Commit So Grave a Wrong — The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed is a mitigating circumstance. It does not negate murder when treachery qualifies the killing, but it may offset an aggravating circumstance such as recidivism. Here, because Ramon aimed at the victim’s leg rather than a vital part, the mitigating circumstance offset recidivism and reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

• Intervening Medical Negligence — An assailant is not relieved of criminal responsibility if the wound he inflicted was dangerous and calculated to destroy or endanger life, even if the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment. The Court applied this rule because the victim’s leg bones were fractured, the skin and muscles were macerated, and amputation was necessitated.

• Caliber of Weapon — The caliber of the firearm used is immaterial where there is positive testimony identifying the assailant, especially absent expert ballistics evidence to support a contrary theory. The Court rejected Ramon’s argument that the type of ammunition would have caused David to suffer gunshot wounds if Ramon had fired at close range.

• "Treachery was considered in this case as the qualifying circumstance and is evident from the fact that Blas Pacete was shot from behind by Ramon Abejuela while David Abejuela was holding Pacete's arm, pulling Pacete towards him, and Pacete was holding on to a post with his other hand. Blas Pacete was unarmed and the attack was sudden and unexpected and there was no risk at all to the assailant." — This passage states the ratio for treachery as a qualifying circumstance, grounding the murder conviction.

• "The unity of purpose and community of design is apparent from the fact that Ramon Abejuela shot Blas Pacete while David Abejuela was holding Pacete's arm; that David Abejuela also shot Blas Pacete when the latter fell after being shot by Rainon Abejuela: and that they fled from the scene of the crime and hid in the mill of one Mr. Caluya and went together to Valencia the following morning to file a complaint against Blas Pacete and others." — This passage explains the evidentiary basis for conspiracy, showing unity of purpose and community of design from the accused’s concerted acts and flight.

• 'The general rule is that "he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment."' — This passage states the rule on intervening medical negligence, rejecting the argument that the doctor’s treatment excused Ramon’s liability.

• "Indeed, the circumstances of the case show that Ramon Abejuela did not intend to kill Blas Pacete since the shot was directed towards the calf of the leg and not towards a vital part of the body. However, he is responsible for the consequences of his act, which is, the death of Blas Pacete. If he had not assaulted Blas Pacete in a treacherous manner, he would have been found guilty of homicide. But, since the act was committed with treachery, the defendant, although he did not intend to kill the deceased, is guilty of murder because of the qualifying circumstance of treachery." — This passage explains why lack of intent to kill did not negate murder and why the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong applied.

• People vs. Sales, L-29340, April 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 489 — Cited for the rule that the trial court’s findings on witness credibility are entitled to great weight and may not be overturned unless it overlooked or failed to consider facts of weight and importance that could materially affect the conclusion.
• People vs. Moldes, 61 Phil. 1, 3 — Cited for the rule that he who inflicts a dangerous wound is not relieved of responsibility even if the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment.
• People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524 — Cited for the principle that lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed may be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder. The trial court convicted David and Ramon under this article, and the Supreme Court affirmed Ramon’s conviction for murder qualified by treachery.
• Article 14, paragraph 9, Revised Penal Code — Provides for recidivism as an aggravating circumstance. Both accused were found to be recidivists based on their prior final convictions for Serious Physical Injuries in Criminal Case No. 949 on July 5, 1962.
• Article 13, No. 3, Revised Penal Code — Provides for lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as a mitigating circumstance. The Court applied it to Ramon, offsetting recidivism and reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concurred. Justices Antonio, Abad Santos, and Santos took no part; Justice Felix Q. Antonio took no part because he was the Solicitor General at the time.