People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Demate y Logana and Dante Morales

Treachery qualifies a killing to murder where the victim, newly awakened and lying in bed, is attacked swiftly and without any real chance to defend himself or retaliate; but evident premeditation and nighttime cannot be appreciated absent clear proof and, for nighttime, absent allegation in the Information, and absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua, not death.

Felipe Demate is the stepbrother of Dante Morales. Morales had been employed in the poultry business of the spouses Jaime and Violeta Ricablanca but quit in April 1996. The Ricablancas’ maid, Jimbie Alfaño, was introduced to Demate by Morales; Demate courted her and visited her in the evenings.

Felipe Demate is the stepbrother of Dante Morales. About a year before the incident, Morales was employed by the spouses Jaime and Violeta Ricablanca in their poultry business, but he quit in April 1996. The Ricablancas had a maid, Jimbie Alfaño, who had worked with them for three years. Morales introduced Demate to Jimbie, and Demate began courting her; the two became close, and Demate usually visited her in the evenings to pay court.

At about eight o’clock in the evening of May 24, 1996, Jimbie was outside the Ricablanca house in Sitio Alagao, Barangay Galamay-Amo, San Jose, Batangas, doing the family laundry. Demate, whom she knew as “Dodong Morales,” engaged her in conversation and told her to open the door in front of the garage of her employer at 3:00 a.m. of May 26, 1996, a Sunday. Demate did not tell her the reason for his request. In the wee hours of May 26, 1996, Jimbie woke up at more or less three o’clock in the morning and opened the garage door as requested. Soon thereafter, she saw Demate at the stairs of the house; he repeated his request, and she opened the main door of the house and then went back to her room. Inside, Jaime and Violeta Ricablanca and their minor son, Joseph Ryan, were fast asleep in their respective rooms.

Suddenly, Jimbie heard loud thuds coming from the middle room where Jaime was sleeping. The commotion also woke Violeta, who heard her husband utter, “Papatayin mo ako, bakit mo ako papatayin?” Violeta immediately rushed to Jaime’s room, followed by Joseph Ryan and Jimbie. When she looked inside, Violeta saw Demate astride Jaime, who was still lying on the bed, repeatedly stabbing her husband. She was around two meters away from the bed and could clearly recognize Demate because the room was brightly lit by a 100-watt fluorescent lamp immediately outside the door. Joseph Ryan peeped in and also saw Demate stab his father many times. Jimbie also looked in and saw Demate stab her master. Violeta was about to enter the room when Demate turned towards her and hacked her face with a bolo. Violeta ran outside to call for help. She then saw Morales near the garage of her house and discovered that the garage door was unlocked. On seeing her, Morales immediately fled. Meanwhile, Jimbie saw Demate run outside, jump over the terrace railing, and follow Morales, whom she had earlier noticed near the area of the house where she usually washed clothes. Morales had run away when he caught sight of Violeta approaching and shouting for help.

The neighbors of the Ricablancas who rushed to their aid immediately brought Jaime to a hospital. The bolo used by Demate was still embedded in his back. On removing it, Violeta identified the bolo as the property of the Ricablancas, taken from their kitchen. Jaime was beyond medical help, however, and he succumbed to his wounds. Violeta sustained a hack wound on the right side of her face which caused serious damage to her facial muscles. She was treated by Dr. Cesar Guillo, a surgeon of San Jose General Hospital. Dr. Guillo stated that while the wound by itself was not necessarily fatal per se, it could have caused death from complications had no medical treatment been given. Dr. Antonio S. Vertido, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, performed an autopsy on Jaime’s remains. The autopsy report showed that Jaime sustained one chopped wound, four incised wounds, and nine stab wounds, at least four of which were serious in nature; the cause of death was “hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds.”

After fleeing the scene of the crime, Demate and Morales went into hiding. Three months later, they were arrested in San Francisco, Quezon by elements of the Philippine National Police. Demate raised the defense of alibi, claiming that he was in his hometown, Aurora, Quezon at the time of the incident. He denied having known or courted Jimbie, claiming that he only met her after his incarceration. To corroborate his alibi, Demate presented Nolito Olayes, who testified that in April 1996, he knew for a fact that Demate was residing in Mabunga, San Francisco, Quezon, as they were neighbors there. Demate and Morales were charged before the RTC of Batangas City, Branch 84, with murder for Jaime’s death and frustrated murder for Violeta’s wounding. At trial, the prosecution presented Violeta, Joseph Ryan, and Jimbie, who positively identified Demate as the person who repeatedly stabbed Jaime and hacked Violeta, and Morales as the lookout. The trial court found the prosecution’s version convincing, stressing that the positive identification of Felipe Demate by the eyewitnesses made his defense of alibi untenable. These findings led to the convictions for murder and frustrated murder.

• Treachery: Appellants argued that the trial court erred in holding that treachery was present; none of the prosecution eyewitnesses saw how the attack commenced, and it was erroneous to rule that the victim was asleep when attacked because his utterance “Papatayin mo ako, bakit mo ako papatayin?” showed he was awake when assaulted.
• Evident Premeditation: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in ruling that evident premeditation existed merely from Demate’s instructions to Jimbie to open the door at 3:00 a.m. of May 26, 1996; Jimbie categorically stated that Demate did not disclose the reason or motive behind his request, so there was no basis to infer a plan to kill the owner.
• Nighttime: Appellants faulted the trial court for appreciating nighttime, arguing that the mere fact that Demate entered the victim’s house at around three o’clock in the morning did not necessarily mean that they took advantage of darkness.
• Modification of Conviction: Appellants did not seek acquittal or reversal of their conviction but prayed that they be adjudged guilty only of homicide and frustrated homicide instead of murder and frustrated murder.

• Treachery: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the testimonies showed Demate unexpectedly and swiftly attacked the victim, whom he roused from sleep and mercilessly stabbed and hacked while the victim was lying on his back; these circumstances showed alevosia because the onslaught was so swift that the victim, suddenly awakened from sleep, had no opportunity to defend himself.
• Evident Premeditation: The OSG pointed to circumstances showing a careful plan: Morales used to work at the Ricablancas’ poultry farm but left without word one month before the incident; he introduced Demate to Jimbie; at around 3:00 a.m. of April 16, 1996, Jimbie let Demate inside the Ricablanca dwelling and he stole ₱14,000.00 in cash from the victim’s room (Criminal Case No. 8510); around 8:00 p.m. of May 24, 1996, Demate again asked Jimbie to open the door at 3:00 a.m. of May 26, 1996; and at around 3:00 a.m. of May 26, 1996, Jimbie opened the door while Morales stood guard and Demate proceeded to the master’s bedroom. The OSG submitted that these circumstances showed a predetermined plan to harm the victim and his family if they got in the way of an attempt to steal more from the Ricablancas.
• Nighttime: The OSG argued that under Article 13 of the Civil Code the offense was committed at nighttime, having been committed before sunrise, and that under Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code nocturnity should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance; the appellants purposely sought the cover of darkness to make it difficult for them to be identified.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of Demate and Morales for the killing of Jaime Ricablanca and the wounding of Violeta Ricablanca.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing and wounding, qualifying the offenses to murder and frustrated murder.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Nighttime: Whether nighttime was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Gravity of the Offenses: Whether the crimes committed were murder and frustrated murder rather than homicide and frustrated homicide.
• Penalties: Whether the death penalty and the indeterminate sentence for frustrated murder were proper.
• Damages: Whether the awards of civil indemnity, moral, exemplary, and actual damages were proper.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Yes. Three eyewitnesses positively identified Demate as the stabber and Morales as the lookout; their testimonies remained unshaken and were corroborated by the autopsy, while Demate’s alibi could not prevail over positive identification.
• Treachery: Yes. Both elements of treachery were proven: the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and the offender consciously adopted the means of attack.
• Evident Premeditation: No. The record was less than clear as to when and how the killing was planned, and the requisites of evident premeditation were not shown.
• Nighttime: No. Although the subjective test was passed, nighttime was absorbed by treachery and was not alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511.
• Gravity of the Offenses: Murder and frustrated murder. Treachery qualified the killing and wounding, while evident premeditation and nighttime were not properly appreciated.
• Penalties: Death penalty not proper. Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua; the indeterminate sentence for frustrated murder is in order.
• Damages: Modified. Civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00, moral damages reduced to ₱50,000.00, exemplary damages of ₱25,000.00, actual damages reduced to ₱45,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 8511, and actual damages of ₱67,380.00 to Violeta in Criminal Case No. 8512.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses—Violeta Ricablanca, Joseph Ryan Ricablanca, and Jimbie Alfaño—who saw Demate repeatedly stabbing Jaime inside the master’s bedroom at the wee hours of May 26, 1996. Demate was positively identified in open court by all three eyewitnesses. Morales was seen by Violeta and Jimbie immediately outside the Ricablanca house at the time of the incident, acting as a lookout for Demate, and Violeta positively identified Morales in open court based on his photo in the records. These witnesses were intensively grilled on cross-examination, but their testimonies remained unshaken. Their testimony on the stabbing was corroborated by the autopsy report of Dr. Vertido, which showed nine stab wounds, one chopped wound, and four incised wounds resulting in death. That Violeta and Joseph Ryan were wife and son of the victim did not detract from their credibility; relatives of victims of crimes have a natural knack for remembering the face of the attacker and are concerned with vindicating the crime. No improper motive was shown. Against the positive identification, Demate offered only a shaky alibi, which cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses. Thus, the trial court’s findings that Demate repeatedly stabbed the victim while Morales stood as lookout were sustained, and both were criminally liable as principals by direct participation.

• Treachery: Alevosia exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him. Both elements were proven. The victim was in bed, flat on his back, when the killer went on top of him and stabbed him several times. The killing occurred at three o’clock in the morning, an hour when generally people are asleep. The victim had been awakened when the killer entered the room and, on seeing the latter armed with a bolo, remarked, “Papatayin mo ako, bakit mo ako papatayin?” He was caught unaware and totally defenseless against the armed invader. Even when the victim was warned of the danger to his person, as long as the execution of the attack made it impossible for him to defend himself or retaliate, treachery could be appreciated. Violeta testified that the attack upon her husband, including the assault on her person, lasted only five seconds or less. The assault was executed with swiftness, catching the victim helpless. In his position and condition, the victim was deprived of any real chance to defend himself, much less retaliate. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself. Hence, the trial court did not err in ruling that the killing of Jaime Ricablanca and the wounding of Violeta Ricablanca were attended by treachery.

• Evident Premeditation: Like any aggravating or qualifying circumstance, evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. To prove evident premeditation, the prosecution must show: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Evident premeditation is not presumed from the mere lapse of time. It may only be appreciated when the execution of the crime is preceded by cool thought and deliberate reflection upon the resolution to carry out the felonious intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. Despite the OSG’s submission, the record was less than clear as to when and how the killing was planned. Whether the plan was only to steal valuables from the victims, or to kill them as well if they got in the way, was not discernible from the record. Jimbie testified that Demate did not tell her the reason why he wanted her to open the door of the Ricablanca house at 3:00 a.m. of May 26, 1996. The Court could not speculate that the request was made with murder or robbery or both in mind. Absent a clear showing of its requisites, evident premeditation was ruled out.

• Nighttime: There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance. First is the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense. Second is the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender. The two tests should be applied in the alternative. When Demate asked the housemaid to let him inside her master’s house at 3:00 a.m., the subjective test was passed. However, nighttime could not be appreciated for two reasons. First, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is already absorbed by treachery. Second, the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511 did not specifically allege the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which should be given retroactive effect following the rule that statutes governing court proceedings are construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. Since nighttime was not alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511, it could not be appreciated against the appellants.

• Gravity of the Offenses: Because treachery qualified the killing and wounding, the offenses committed were murder and frustrated murder, not homicide and frustrated homicide. Evident premeditation and nighttime were not properly appreciated. Thus, the convictions for murder and frustrated murder stood.

• Penalties: Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the crime, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties must be applied. Thus, in Criminal Case No. 8511, the imposable penalty was not death but only reclusion perpetua. In Criminal Case No. 8512, for frustrated murder, the penalty to be imposed shall, pursuant to Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, be one degree lower than that for consummated murder. Under Article 61(2), the penalty next lower in degree is reclusion temporal, whose duration is from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be applied in its medium period, or from 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal. Thus, the penalty imposed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 8512 was in order.

• Damages: In Criminal Case No. 8511, following current case law, the heirs of Jaime Ricablanca were entitled to ₱50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. The award of moral damages was reduced from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00. In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of ₱25,000.00 were awarded, considering the attendance of treachery, which qualified the killing to murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances; the term aggravating circumstance as used therein is construed in its generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise. The award of ₱50,000.00 as actual damages was reduced to ₱45,000.00, based on the supporting receipt. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable to the injured party. Finally, in Criminal Case No. 8512, Violeta Ricablanca was entitled to actual damages in the amount of ₱67,380.00 for medical and dental bills, which were duly supported by competent evidence.

• Alibi — Alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the author of the crime by credible witnesses. Here, Demate’s claim that he was in Aurora, Quezon at the time was rejected because three eyewitnesses positively identified him as the attacker.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It requires proof that (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (b) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed. The Court found both elements where the victim was attacked while lying in bed, newly awakened, and the assault lasted five seconds or less, leaving no real chance to defend or retaliate. Treachery qualified the killing to murder and the wounding to frustrated murder.
• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires proof of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination, and (3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection upon the consequences. It is not presumed from mere lapse of time and must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. The Court ruled it out because the record did not clearly show when or how the killing was planned and Jimbie was not told the reason for the request to open the door.
• Nocturnity — Nighttime as an aggravating circumstance may be appreciated under either the objective test (it facilitates the commission of the offense) or the subjective test (it was purposely sought by the offender), applied in the alternative. Although the subjective test was passed when Demate asked the maid to let him inside at 3:00 a.m., nighttime was not appreciated because it was absorbed by treachery and was not alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511.
• Absorption of Aggravating Circumstance by Treachery — When nighttime is already absorbed by treachery, it cannot be separately appreciated to increase the penalty. The Court applied this rule to reject nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
• Pleading and Proof of Aggravating Circumstances — Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, given retroactive effect to pending actions, every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. Because nighttime was not alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511, it could not be appreciated against the appellants.
• Penalty for Murder Absent Modifying Circumstances — Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties—reclusion perpetua—must be imposed. The Court thus reduced the death sentences.
• Penalty for Frustrated Felony — Under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the consummated felony is imposed upon principals of a frustrated felony. Under Article 61(2), for frustrated murder the next lower penalty is reclusion temporal. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty is applied in its medium period, subject to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Actual Damages — Actual damages require proof of the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party. The Court reduced the actual damages in Criminal Case No. 8511 to ₱45,000.00 based on the supporting receipt, while awarding ₱67,380.00 to Violeta in Criminal Case No. 8512 for supported medical and dental bills.
• Exemplary Damages — Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances; the term aggravating circumstance is construed in its generic sense. The Court awarded ₱25,000.00 exemplary damages because treachery qualified the killing to murder.

• "For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution has the burden to prove that: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him." — This states the two elements of treachery, which the Court found proven because the victim was attacked while newly awakened and lying in bed.
• "Evident premeditation is not presumed from the mere lapse of time." — This supports the Court’s rejection of evident premeditation; the mere passage of time between the request to open the door and the killing did not establish the required deliberate planning.
• "First, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is already absorbed by treachery. Second, the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511 did not specifically allege the aggravating circumstance of nighttime." — This explains why nighttime was not appreciated despite the subjective test being passed.
• "Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the crime, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties must be applied. Thus, in Criminal Case No. 8511, the imposable penalty is not death but only reclusion perpetua." — This is the ratio for reducing the death sentence to reclusion perpetua.

• People vs. Montemayor, G.R. No. 125305, June 18, 2003 — Cited for the rule that the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the victim does not detract from their credibility; relatives of victims have a natural knack for remembering the attacker.
• People vs. Aguilos, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003 — Cited for the rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses; also cited in the reduction of moral damages.
• People vs. Torio, G.R. No. 122109, June 25, 2003 — Cited for the weakness of alibi as a defense.
• People vs. Inggo, G.R. No. 140872, June 23, 2003 — Cited for the definition of alevosia.
• People vs. Esponilla, G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003 — Cited for the two elements of treachery.
• People vs. Musa, Jr., G.R. No. 137042, June 17, 2003, citing People vs. Tanoy, G.R. No. 115692, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 12 — Cited for the rule that treachery may be appreciated even if the victim was warned, as long as the execution of the attack made it impossible for him to defend himself or retaliate.
• People vs. Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself.
• People vs. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003 — Cited for the requisites of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003 — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation is not presumed from mere lapse of time.
• People vs. Sapigao, G.R. No. 144975, June 18, 2003 — Cited for the requirement of cool thought and deliberate reflection for evident premeditation.
• People vs. Parazo, 338 Phil. 1010, 1021 (1997) — Cited for the two tests of nocturnity.
• People vs. Melendres, Jr., G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003 — Cited for the rule that nighttime is absorbed by treachery.
• People vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 135919, May 9, 2003 — Cited for retroactive application of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• People vs. Pidoy, G.R. No. 146696, July 3, 2003 — Cited for the award of exemplary damages due to treachery.
• People vs. Suelto, 381 Phil. 851, 869 (2000) — Cited for the proof required for actual damages.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659 — Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The Court applied it but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua because no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were properly appreciated.
• Article 50, Revised Penal Code — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the consummated felony is imposed upon principals in a frustrated felony. Applied to frustrated murder.
• Article 61(2), Revised Penal Code — Rules for graduating penalties; when the prescribed penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree is that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed. Applied to determine reclusion temporal for frustrated murder.
• Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code — Nighttime is an aggravating circumstance when it facilitates the commission of the offense. The Court declined to appreciate it because it was absorbed by treachery and not alleged in the Information.
• Article 13, Civil Code — Defines nighttime as from sunset to sunrise. Cited by the OSG to argue that the offense was committed at nighttime.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Exemplary damages may be imposed as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Applied to award ₱25,000.00 exemplary damages due to treachery.
• Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure — The complaint or information must state the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Given retroactive effect; nighttime was not alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511, so it could not be appreciated.

Davide, Jr., C.J.; Puno; Vitug; Panganiban; Ynares-Santiago; Sandoval-Gutierrez; Carpio; Austria-Martinez; Corona; Carpio-Morales; Callejo, Sr.; Azcuna; and Tinga, JJ., concur.