People vs. Adriano

Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, an accused who commits a felony is criminally liable for all natural and logical consequences thereof, including the accidental killing of an unintended victim (aberratio ictus); such killing qualifies as murder, not homicide, when the original attack was executed with treachery. Furthermore, when multiple shots are fired causing the death of different victims, separate crimes are committed rather than a complex crime.

The case arose from a highway ambush on 13 March 2007 along the Olongapo-Gapan National Road in Barangay Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. The attack was witnessed by two police officers who were en route to Camp Olivas, Pampanga. The incident involved a car rental vehicle used by the accused and his co-conspirators to intercept and fatally shoot the intended victim, resulting in the collateral death of a bystander.

• On 13 March 2007 at approximately 8:00 a.m., PO1 Matthew Garabiles and PO2 Alejandro Santos, in civilian clothes and riding a motorcycle, were traveling along the Olongapo-Gapan National Road in Barangay Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.
• A blue Toyota Corolla with plate number WHK 635 overtook the police officers and a maroon Honda CRV with plate number CTL 957.
• When the Corolla reached alongside the CRV, the front passenger shot at the CRV, causing it to swerve and fall into a canal in the road embankment.
• Four armed men alighted from the Corolla and shot at the driver of the CRV, later identified as Danilo Cabiedes, who died from three gunshot wounds to the left chest.
• During the shooting, a bystander, Ofelia Bulanan, was hit by a stray bullet in the head and died on the spot.
• The assailants fled in the Corolla. The police later learned the vehicle was registered to Antonio Rivera, a car rental operator who identified Adriano as the lessee.
• PO1 Garabiles and PO2 Santos positively identified Adriano at Rivera's shop as the shooter who alighted from the passenger seat of the Corolla.
• Police recovered six cartridges from a .45 caliber firearm from the scene, indicating separate shots were fired.
• Adriano presented an alibi, claiming he was in Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga (approximately one hour away by car) washing clothes, visiting friends, and watching cockfights at the time of the incident.
• Defense witnesses included Adriano's relatives and friends who corroborated his alibi.

• The prosecution witnesses' testimonies were contradictory and inconsistent regarding the precise moment of shooting, the side of the vehicle from which shooters alighted, the identity of the specific shooter, and the exact distance and timing of the incident.
• The defense of alibi should have been appreciated as credible evidence showing he was in Magalang, Pampanga at the time of the crime.
• The positive identification by police officers should not prevail over the corroborated alibi.
• The killing of Bulanan was not deliberate and should not qualify as murder; at most, it should be homicide without treachery.
• The deaths resulted from a single act constituting a complex crime, or alternatively, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for two separate crimes.

• The prosecution successfully established the concurrence of elements for murder: death of the victims, positive identification of Adriano as a perpetrator, and the attendance of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
• The minor inconsistencies in police testimony were trivial and actually indicated veracity rather than fabrication.
• Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification by credible eyewitnesses; furthermore, Magalang was only less than an hour away from the crime scene, making physical presence possible.
• Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code (aberratio ictus), Adriano is liable for the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act, including the death of the unintended victim Bulanan.
• Treachery can be appreciated even in aberratio ictus because the stray bullet originated from a treacherous attack.
• Multiple shots fired resulting in separate deaths constitute separate crimes, not a complex crime, citing People v. Nelmida.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony.
  • Whether the defense of alibi is credible and sufficient to overcome positive identification.
  • Whether treachery attended the killing of Danilo Cabiedes.
  • Whether the accused is criminally liable for the death of Ofelia Bulanan under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code (aberratio ictus).
  • Whether treachery can be appreciated in aberratio ictus to qualify the killing of the unintended victim as murder.
  • Whether the felonious acts constitute a complex crime or separate and distinct crimes of murder.
  • Whether the monetary awards for damages were correctly computed.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court affirmed the conviction for the murder of Danilo Cabiedes, finding that treachery was present because the ambush ensured execution without risk to the offenders, absorbing the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
  • Applying Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court held Adriano liable for the death of Ofelia Bulanan under the doctrine of aberratio ictus; the stray bullet that killed her was a natural and logical consequence of the deliberate felonious assault on Cabiedes.
  • Following People v. Flora, the Court ruled that treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus because the method of attack (ambush) was deliberately treacherous, qualifying Bulanan's death as murder rather than homicide.
  • Citing People v. Nelmida, the Court held that separate crimes were committed rather than a complex crime because the victims died from separate shots (evidenced by six recovered cartridges), not from a single act.
  • The defense of alibi was rejected because Dolores, Magalang was less than an hour away from the crime scene, and the alibi was corroborated only by relatives and friends rather than credible independent witnesses.
  • The Court modified the damages, increasing actual damages to P232,482.00 for Cabiedes, awarding exemplary damages of P30,000.00 for both victims, and modifying the conviction for Bulanan from homicide to murder with corresponding damages.

• Aberratio Ictus (Error in Blow) — Defined as the accidental injuring or killing of a person other than the intended victim. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred for the wrongful act done even if different from that intended. Applied to hold the accused liable for the bystander's death despite lack of specific intent to kill her.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — Defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly to ensure execution without risk to the offender. Elements: (1) victim was not in a position to defend himself at the time of attack, and (2) accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means of attack. Applied to both intended and unintended victims in an ambush scenario.
• Separate Crimes vs. Complex Crimes — When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes rather than a complex crime. A complex crime requires either a single act constituting two or more grave felonies (compound crime) or an offense being a necessary means for committing another (complex crime proper).
• Alibi — A weak defense that requires clear and convincing proof that the accused was somewhere else at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses.

• "Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from that which is intended. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally or logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not."
• "The fact that accused killed a person other than their intended victim is of no moment."
• "el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado" (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).
• "Stray bullets, obviously, kill indiscriminately and often without warning, precluding the unknowing victim from repelling the attack or defending himself."
• "In ambush, the crime is carried out to ensure that the victim is killed and at the same time, to eliminate any risk from any possible defenses or retaliation from the victim."
• "The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."

• People v. Flora — Established that treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus when the original attack was treacherous, qualifying the unintended victim's death as murder.
• People v. Nelmida — Distinguished complex crimes from separate crimes; held that when victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
• People v. Herrera — Cited for the principle that criminal liability attaches for all natural and logical consequences of a felony under Article 4 RPC.
• People v. Hilario — Cited for the rule that killing a person other than the intended victim is of no moment in establishing criminal liability.
• People v. Ural — Cited for the doctrine "el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado."
• People v. Obosa — Cited for the principle that ambush exemplifies the nature of treachery.
• People v. Dolorido — Cited for the elements of treachery under Article 14 of the RPC.
• People v. Escote, Jr. — Cited for the definition of the essence of treachery.
• People v. Padlan — Cited for the requirement that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the means of attack.
• People v. Robles — Cited for the inherent weakness of the defense of alibi.
• People v. Mosquerra — Cited for the requirement that alibi must show physical impossibility to be at the crime scene.
• PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp. v. CA — Cited for the rule that actual damages must be established with reasonable certainty by competent proof.

• Article 4 (1), Revised Penal Code — Criminal liability incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended (aberratio ictus).
• Article 14, Paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Definition of treachery as the employment of means which tend directly to ensure execution without risk to the offender.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Definition of murder and its penalty (reclusion perpetua to death).
• Article 63, Paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Rules for application of indivisible penalties when there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.