People of the Philippines vs. Mardy Aquino, et al.

Abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance in murder must be proven by evidence that the assailants consciously took advantage of a notorious inequality of forces, and it cannot qualify an offense if not specifically alleged in the information; where the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted homicide. Mere superiority in numbers does not ipso facto establish abuse of superior strength.

The charges were filed under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which defines murder and prescribes qualifying circumstances, while Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure govern the allegation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the information. The prosecution arose from an incident in Barangay Balogo-Pandel, Binmaley, Pangasinan, involving the Caguioa family and several accused, including Mardy and Mario Aquino. Other co-accused—Recto Aquino, Inyong Narvante, Romy Fernandez, Felix Saplan, and Bonifacio Caguioa—remained at large.

In two Informations dated 15 August 2001, Mardy Aquino, Mario Aquino, and several others were charged with murder and frustrated murder for an incident on 15 May 2001 at around 10:30 a.m. in Barangay Balogo-Pandel, Binmaley, Pangasinan. The murder information alleged that the accused, armed with a knife, conspiring and helping one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, attacked and stabbed Jackie N. Caguioa, causing his death. The frustrated murder information alleged that they attacked and stabbed Ernesto Caguioa with intent to kill and evident premeditation, inflicting stab wounds and other injuries that required surgery, and that the acts would have produced murder but did not because of timely medical assistance. Both charges were under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the frustrated murder charge in relation to Article 6. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.

According to the prosecution, at around 10:30 a.m. on 15 May 2001, Inyong Narvante approached Ernesto Caguioa and asked for fish while Inyong was drinking with friends. Ernesto refused and teased Inyong for voting for a certain Domalante. Inyong shouted “vulva of your mother” and threatened that something would happen to Ernesto, then returned to his friends. Later, Ernesto was talking with his son Jackie, Rick De Guzman, and Orlando Ferrer while waiting for a boat to transport their catch to Dagupan. About 100 meters away, Ernesto’s twin sons Edwin and Edward, together with Dicto de Guzman and Bonifacio Doria, were washing fishing nets. Suddenly, Mardy, Mario, Juanito, Inyong, Recto Aquino, Romy Fernandez, Felix Saplan, and Bonifacio Caguioa arrived and threw stones at Edwin’s group. Edwin reported the incident to Jackie and Ernesto.

Jackie then went to where the accused were drinking to ask why they attacked his brothers, and Ernesto followed. Instead of answering, the accused laughed at him. Raul Bautista, Aquilino Melendez, and Juanito then grabbed and restrained Jackie, who was stabbed by Mardy and Recto. Ernesto tried to help his son, but Mario held him by the neck while Felix, Inyong, Romy, and Bonifacio grabbed his left leg; while restrained, Ernesto was stabbed by Mardy and Recto in the left arm, left stomach, and left thigh. The accused ran away, leaving Ernesto and Jackie injured. The victims were brought to the hospital, but Jackie died on the way.

The defense presented a different account. Julius Caguioa, son of Bonifacio, testified that at around 1:00 p.m. on 15 May 2001, he was at Romy’s house where he saw Mario, Felix, and Bonifacio drinking. Ernesto and Jackie arrived and approached the group; Ernesto hit Bonifacio with a water pipe while Jackie stabbed Bonifacio in the upper right side. Miriam Puroganan, Mario’s daughter, testified that at the same date and time, she was at her mother-in-law’s house two meters from Romy’s house; she heard Romy’s wife shout, “Don’t make trouble,” and when she went out she saw Ernesto hitting Mario with an iron pipe, after which Mardy arrived and stabbed Ernesto to protect Mario. Mario testified that he was drinking with Recto, Felix, and Romy at Romy’s place when Bonifacio and Inyong arrived to borrow money; while they waited, Ernesto and his sons Jackie, Edwin, and Edward arrived, Jackie stabbed Bonifacio and tried to stab Mardy but failed because Recto stabbed Jackie first, Ernesto struck Inyong with an iron pipe, and Mario was hit by Ernesto on the right lower leg and head, causing him to lose consciousness. Juanito denied participation, saying he was asleep at home at around 10:00 a.m. and was named in the complaint because Jackie’s family had a grudge against him for testifying against them. Mardy testified that he was asleep at home about 50 meters from Romy’s house when Recto woke him and told him Mario was being attacked; he went to Romy’s place, saw Jackie stab Bonifacio, saw Ernesto hitting Mario with a water pipe, and stabbed Ernesto to protect his father, after which he and his father went home.

The RTC found the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies clear and concluded that the accused took advantage of superior strength and conspired in assaulting Jackie and Ernesto. The CA likewise found that the use of a deadly weapon and the number of wounds inflicted demonstrated a deliberate and determined assault with intent to kill; that abuse of superior strength was not negated by injuries suffered by some of the accused; and that conspiracy was sufficiently proved because the victims were simultaneously restrained and stabbed. The CA reduced actual damages to ₱20,000.00 because the receipts showed only that amount in funeral expenses.

• Intent to Kill: Accused-appellants contended that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Accused-appellants argued that the finding of abuse of superior strength was negated by the fact that some of the accused suffered injuries.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Accused-appellants appealed the RTC and CA convictions, putting in issue whether their guilt for murder and frustrated murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Abuse of Superior Strength as Qualifying Circumstance: Whether abuse of superior strength was proven beyond reasonable doubt to qualify the killing of Jackie Caguioa as murder.
• Allegation of Qualifying Circumstance in the Information: Whether abuse of superior strength may be appreciated to qualify the frustrated murder charge against Ernesto Caguioa when it was not alleged in the information.
• Nature of Ernesto Caguioa’s Wounds: Whether the wounds inflicted on Ernesto Caguioa were fatal, making the crime frustrated homicide, or non-fatal, making it only attempted homicide.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether accused-appellants’ guilt for murder and frustrated murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages should be modified in light of the crimes established.

• Abuse of Superior Strength as Qualifying Circumstance: No. Abuse of superior strength was not proven; mere superiority in numbers does not ipso facto establish it, and the encounter was unplanned and unpremeditated. The killing of Jackie Caguioa is homicide, not murder.
• Allegation of Qualifying Circumstance in the Information: No. Qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information; the information for frustrated murder alleged only evident premeditation, which was not proven, and abuse of superior strength was not alleged. The charge cannot stand as frustrated murder.
• Nature of Ernesto Caguioa’s Wounds: Attempted homicide only. The prosecution failed to prove that the wounds would have certainly caused death without timely medical assistance; the doctor testified that death was a remote possibility and the victim would survive even without treatment.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Partially. Guilt for homicide and attempted homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt; guilt for murder and frustrated murder was not.
• Penalty and Damages: Modified. For homicide, 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, plus ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 moral damages, ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages, and ₱25,000.00 temperate damages. For attempted homicide, 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum, plus ₱20,000.00 civil indemnity, ₱20,000.00 moral damages, and ₱20,000.00 exemplary damages.

• Abuse of Superior Strength as Qualifying Circumstance: Under Article 248, murder requires that the killing be attended by any qualifying circumstance. Abuse of superior strength is present when there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors, plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage or had the deliberate intent to use it; taking advantage means purposely using force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Appreciation depends on age, size, and strength. Here, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence of relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force, except that two assailants stabbed Jackie while three others restrained him. The presence of several assailants does not ipso facto indicate abuse of superior strength; mere superiority in numbers is not indicative. The totality of the evidence showed the encounter was unplanned and unpremeditated because Jackie and Ernesto went to the place where the accused were drinking. There was no conscious effort by the accused to use or take advantage of superior strength, and it was not clearly established that they purposely held Jackie by the arms so that two could stab him. Thus, abuse of superior strength was ruled out, and guilt was limited to homicide.
• Allegation of Qualifying Circumstance in the Information: An information must contain all elements required by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. In murder, the qualifying circumstance raising the killing to murder must be specifically alleged in the information. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 require both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be specifically alleged to be appreciated as such. The information for frustrated murder merely alleged evident premeditation, but the prosecution did not attempt to prove it; the testimonies proved abuse of superior strength, which was not alleged. Absent any other qualifying circumstance in the information for Criminal Case No. L-6576, the charge against accused-appellants must be downgraded to homicide. Because the wounds were non-fatal, the crime is attempted homicide.
• Nature of Ernesto Caguioa’s Wounds: The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill the victim, as manifested by use of a deadly weapon; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 is present. If the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted homicide. The prosecution must establish with certainty the nature, extent, depth, and severity of the wounds. Dr. Carlito V. Arenas testified that Ernesto had four stab wounds: the first, at the left thoraco-abdominal area, reached only the intercostal muscle and did not penetrate any internal organ; the second, on the left thenar, penetrated the tendons but affected no vital organs; the third, on the left thigh, was 2.5 cm and affected the quadriceps muscle with hematoma but no neurovascular involvement; and the fourth, on the leg, penetrated only the skin and fat tissues. The doctor testified that Ernesto would survive even without medical treatment and that death from infection or loss of blood was a remote possibility. Since the wounds were not fatal and there was no showing that they would have certainly caused death without timely medical assistance, the guilt is limited to attempted homicide.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The killing of Jackie, the fact that accused-appellants killed him, and the fact that the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide were undisputed and established by the trial and appellate courts. Accused-appellants offered no substantial reason to deviate from the rule that findings of fact and assessment of credibility are best left to the trial court. No substantial facts were overlooked. The prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were clear and straightforward, supported by medical findings, and stood the test of reason. However, because abuse of superior strength was not proven and was not alleged in the information for the frustrated murder charge, the convictions for murder and frustrated murder could not stand. Guilt was established only for homicide and attempted homicide.
• Penalty and Damages: Under Article 249, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. With no aggravating circumstances, the penalty is in the medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum is from the medium period of reclusion temporal and the minimum from prision mayor; the Court imposed 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. For attempted homicide, Article 51 provides that the penalty for an attempted crime is lower by two degrees than that for the consummated felony. Two degrees lower than reclusion temporal is prision correccional, with a duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum is within prision correccional and the minimum is one degree lower, arresto mayor, with a duration of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months. With no modifying circumstance, the maximum is from the medium period of prision correccional, or 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months, and the minimum is within arresto mayor. The Court imposed 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum. For homicide, the heirs of Jackie Caguioa are entitled to ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 moral damages, and ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages. Because actual damages proven by receipts were less than ₱25,000.00, temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 are justified in lieu of actual damages, following People vs. Villanueva. For attempted homicide, Ernesto Caguioa is entitled to ₱20,000.00 civil indemnity and ₱20,000.00 moral damages; because abuse of superior strength was duly proved even though not alleged in the information, exemplary damages of ₱20,000.00 were awarded. All monetary awards earn 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage or had the deliberate intent to use it; appreciation depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. In this case, the Court ruled that abuse of superior strength was not proven because the encounter was unplanned and unpremeditated, and the prosecution failed to show a relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force.
• Mere Superiority in Numbers — The presence of several assailants does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance. The Court applied this rule in rejecting the CA’s finding of abuse of superior strength based on the number of persons who restrained and stabbed the victims.
• Qualifying Circumstances Must Be Specifically Alleged in the Information — Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure require that both qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specifically alleged in the information to be appreciated as such. In murder, the qualifying circumstance raising the killing to murder must be specifically alleged. The Court applied this rule in holding that abuse of superior strength could not qualify the frustrated murder charge because the information alleged only evident premeditation, which was not proven.
• Frustrated Homicide vs. Attempted Homicide — The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill the victim, as manifested by use of a deadly weapon; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 is present. If the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted homicide. The prosecution must establish with certainty the nature, extent, depth, and severity of the wounds. The Court applied this rule because Ernesto’s wounds were not fatal and the doctor testified that death was a remote possibility.
• Temperate Damages in Lieu of Actual Damages — When actual damages proven by receipts during trial amount to less than ₱25,000.00, the award of temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. The Court applied this rule because the receipts showed only ₱20,000.00 in funeral expenses.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — The Indeterminate Sentence Law governs the fixing of the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalty. The Court applied it in imposing 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum for homicide, and 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum for attempted homicide.
• Exemplary Damages in Attempted Homicide — The Court awarded ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages to Ernesto Caguioa on the ground that abuse of superior strength was duly proved even though not alleged in the information.

• "Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime." — This passage states the Court’s canonical definition of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance.
• "However, the presence of several assailants does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance." — This passage is the ratio for rejecting the CA’s finding of abuse of superior strength based merely on the number of assailants.
• "In this case, the information for frustrated murder merely alleged the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. However, a perusal of the records shows that there was not even an attempt on the part of the prosecution to prove evident premeditation. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses merely proved abuse of superior strength which, however, was not alleged in the information. As such, in the absence of any other qualifying circumstance in the information for Criminal Case No. L-6576, the charge against accused-appellants must be downgraded to homicide." — This passage explains why the frustrated murder charge could not stand and why the charge was downgraded.
• "If the victim's wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted homicide." — This passage states the controlling rule used to downgrade the charge involving Ernesto Caguioa from frustrated homicide to attempted homicide.

• People vs. Mamaruncas, 680 Phil. 192, 198 (2012) — Cited for the rule that findings of fact and assessment of credibility of witnesses are best left to the trial court.
• People vs. Daquipil, 310 Phil. 327, 348 (1995) — Cited for the definition of abuse of superior strength.
• People vs. Casingal, 312 Phil. 945, 956 (1995) — Cited for the requirement that evidence show the assailants consciously sought the advantage.
• People vs. Escoto, 313 Phil. 785, 799 (1995) — Cited for the deliberate intent to use the advantage and for the rule that mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of abuse of superior strength.
• People vs. Ventura, 477 Phil. 458, 484 (2004) — Cited for the rule that taking advantage of superior strength means purposely using force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense.
• People vs. Beduya, 641 Phil. 399, 410-411 (2010) — Cited for the rule that appreciation of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.
• People vs. Lab-Eo, 424 Phil. 482, 488 (2002) — Cited for the rule that the qualifying circumstance raising the killing to murder must be specifically alleged in the information.
• Serrano vs. People, 637 Phil. 319, 337 (2010) — Cited for the elements of frustrated homicide and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Colinares vs. People, 678 Phil. 482, 494 (2011) — Cited for the rule that if the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted homicide, and that the prosecution must establish the nature, extent, depth, and severity of the wounds.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 840 (2016) — Cited for the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for homicide and attempted homicide.
• People vs. Villanueva, 456 Phil. 14 (2003) — Cited for the rule that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than ₱25,000.00, temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 are justified in lieu of actual damages.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and lists qualifying circumstances, including abuse of superior strength. The Court applied it in ruling that abuse of superior strength was not proven, so the killing of Jackie Caguioa was not murder.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes reclusion temporal for homicide. The Court applied it in imposing the penalty for homicide.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for an attempted crime is lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony. The Court applied it in imposing the penalty for attempted homicide.
• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines frustrated felony and was referenced in the information for frustrated murder. The Court’s discussion distinguished frustrated from attempted homicide based on the fatality of the wounds.
• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Require qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be specifically alleged in the information. The Court applied these provisions in holding that abuse of superior strength could not qualify the frustrated murder charge because it was not alleged.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in fixing the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalties for homicide and attempted homicide.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Alexander G. Gesmundo.