People vs. Batulan

Abuse of superior strength qualifies a killing to murder when there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and multiple aggressors, and the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim; unlike treachery, the victim need not be completely defenseless, as the circumstance is determined by the excess of the aggressors' combined strength over that of the victim, considering their momentary positions and the employment of means weakening, though not annihilating, the victim's defense.

The case originated from a violent confrontation at a jeepney terminal in Cagayan De Oro City, where a dispute over payment between a barker and a jeepney driver escalated into a coordinated fatal attack by four armed individuals. The proceedings addressed critical issues regarding the appreciation of qualifying circumstances in murder, specifically the distinction between treachery and abuse of superior strength, and the evidentiary rules governing the admissibility of co-accused testimonies implicating a conspirator.

• On June 21, 2003, at approximately 7:30 p.m., at Manuel Vega corner Abellanosa, Consolacion, Cagayan De Oro City, jeepney driver Ruben Pacho and his wife Letecia were plying their usual route when barker Alvin Pagapulaan demanded P10.00 payment for calling passengers to board the jeepney.
• Following the conductor's refusal and Ruben's offer of only P5.00, Pagapulaan cursed Ruben and boxed the body of the jeepney, causing passengers to alight in fear.
• Ruben grabbed a samurai hidden under his seat to defend himself, but upon alighting from the vehicle, he was immediately surrounded by four attackers: Pagapulaan, Jose Batulan, Renato Fuentes, and Junjun Fuentes.
• The four accused took turns attacking Ruben in a coordinated assault: Pagapulaan hacked Ruben's face and nose with the samurai; Junjun Fuentes stabbed him with a knife; Renato Fuentes struck his nape with a stone causing his skull to crack; and Batulan hacked him with a samurai and stabbed him with a Batangas knife.
• SPO4 Elmo Ausejo and his team responded to a radio report, chased Batulan who was running towards Brgy. Consolacion, and arrested him in an abandoned warehouse where they recovered a bloodied Batangas knife from his possession.
• PO2 Joel Salo arrested Pagapulaan at a nearby carwash while he was holding a samurai, and Letecia Pacho later confirmed to police that Batulan was one of her husband's assailants and identified the recovered knife as a murder weapon.
• Letecia Pacho failed to immediately identify Batulan during the trial in open court because of his new haircut, though she had previously identified him to the police.
• Ruben Pacho died at the hospital from multiple stab and hack wounds as confirmed by the death certificate presented by hospital employee Everly Waban Batalla.
• During trial, co-accused Renato and Junjun Fuentes, who initially denied participation, testified for the defense that they witnessed the altercation and saw Batulan suddenly appear and stab Ruben in the neck with a Batangas knife, approaching from the victim's right side while the victim was facing Pagapulaan.
• Batulan denied the charges, claiming he was merely waiting for a ride at Licoan Street and was arbitrarily invited by police for investigation, and asserted he did not know his co-accused prior to detention.

• Batulan argued that the victim's widow Letecia failed to positively identify him in open court due to his changed appearance (new haircut), rendering the prosecution's evidence insufficient for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• He invoked the principle of res inter alios acta, contending that the testimonies of his co-accused Renato and Junjun Fuentes implicating him as the stabber should not be admissible against him as they constitute declarations made by parties other than the declarant.
• He maintained his innocence and interposed the defense of denial and alibi, asserting he was not present at the crime scene and did not know his co-accused, having met them only at Lumbia City Jail.

• The Office of the Solicitor General argued that notwithstanding Letecia's failure to recognize Batulan in court, the prosecution sufficiently established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the positive identifications made by SPO4 Ausejo (who arrested Batulan with the murder weapon) and the co-accused Renato and Junjun Fuentes (who testified under oath).
• The prosecution maintained that the four accused acted in conspiracy, as evidenced by their concerted actions in simultaneously surrounding the victim and taking turns attacking him with different weapons, demonstrating a common criminal purpose.
• The OSG contended that the principle of res inter alios acta is inapplicable to testimonies given in open court under oath and subject to cross-examination, as the defense had the full opportunity to test the credibility of the declarant witnesses.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the failure of the prosecution's principal witness (the victim's widow) to identify the accused-appellant in open court is fatal to the prosecution's case; and whether the principle of res inter alios acta bars the admission of testimonies of co-accused implicating the appellant.

• Substantive Issues: Whether the four accused acted in conspiracy to kill the victim; whether the killing was qualified to murder by abuse of superior strength or treachery; and whether appellant was positively identified as one of the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt.

• Procedural: The Court held that the failure of Letecia Pacho to identify Batulan in open court was not fatal to the prosecution, as guilt may be proven by other credible and competent evidence, including the positive identifications by police officer SPO4 Ausejo and the co-accused Renato and Junjun Fuentes, as well as the physical evidence of the bloodied Batangas knife recovered from Batulan. The Court also ruled that the principle of res inter alios acta applies only to extrajudicial declarations or admissions and does not apply to testimonies given on the witness stand in open court where the party adversely affected had the full opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

• Substantive: The Court found that conspiracy existed among the four accused based on their coordinated acts: they were all present at the scene, surrounded the victim, took turns attacking him with different weapons (samurai, knife, stone), and immediately fled together, demonstrating a common criminal purpose to kill, rendering each conspirator liable for the acts of the others. The Court ruled that treachery was not present as there was no showing that the appellant deliberately chose a method of attack to ensure the crime's accomplishment without risk of retaliation. However, the Court held that abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder, as the four armed aggressors took advantage of their notorious numerical and physical superiority over the lone victim, using excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to him. The fact that the victim initially held a samurai did not negate this circumstance, as the aggressors disarmed him and overwhelmed him with their synchronized assault. The conviction was affirmed but the damages awards were modified to increase civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000.00 each, award exemplary damages of P75,000.00, and replace actual damages with temperate damages of P50,000.00.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — This qualifying circumstance exists whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and his aggressors, and the latter took advantage of such inequality to facilitate the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Unlike treachery, which requires the victim to be completely defenseless and unable to repel aggression, abuse of superior strength does not require the victim to be completely defenseless; it is determined by the excess of the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim, considering the momentary position of both and the employment of means weakening the defense, although not annulling it. In this case, the Court applied this doctrine to qualify the killing to murder where four armed attackers overwhelmed a lone victim who, despite initial possession of a weapon, was placed at a notorious disadvantage by the coordinated assault and simultaneous use of multiple weapons.
• Res Inter Alios Acta — The rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. However, this principle applies only to extrajudicial declarations or admissions and does not apply to testimonies given on the witness stand in open court where the party adversely affected had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The Court invoked this distinction to admit the testimony of co-accused against the appellant because they were subjected to cross-examination.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. Once established, each conspirator is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them. The Court found conspiracy through the coordinated acts of the accused in surrounding and attacking the victim simultaneously with different weapons, demonstrating a unity of purpose and community of design.

• "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Unlike in treachery, where the victim was not given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression, taking advantage of superior strength does not mean that the victim was completely defenseless. It is determined by the excess of the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim, considering the momentary position of both and the employment of means weakening the defense, although not annulling it."
• "The principle of res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. This rule, however, applies to extrajudicial declarations or admissions. It does not apply to testimonies given on the witness stand where the party adversely affected had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant."
• "Here, it is evident that appellant and his co-accused took advantage of their number and weapons to put the victim at a notorious disadvantage... The balance of strength excessively tilted in their favor. Appellant and his co-accused overwhelmed the victim with their sudden synchronized assault."

• People v. Evasco, G.R. No. 213415 (2018) — Cited for the proposition regarding abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance that requires a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors.
• People v. Ventura, 477 Phil. 458 (2004) — Cited to distinguish abuse of superior strength from treachery, explaining that the former does not require the victim to be completely defenseless but focuses on the excess of force used by the aggressors.
• People v. Siccuan, 337 Phil. 617 (1997) — Cited for the definition of taking advantage of superior strength involving the use of excessive force out of proportion to the victim's means of defense.
• Tamargo v. Awingan, 624 Phil. 312 (2010) — Cited for the principle of res inter alios acta regarding the inadmissibility of extrajudicial declarations of other parties.
• People v. Comiling, 468 Phil. 869 (2004) — Cited to support the ruling that res inter alios acta does not apply to testimonies given on the witness stand where cross-examination is allowed.
• People v. Orias, 636 Phil. 427 (2010) — Cited for the doctrine on conspiracy and the rule that the act of one conspirator is the act of all, making each liable for the crime committed by any member of the conspiracy.

• Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder; specifically provides that a killing is qualified to murder when the offenders take advantage of superior strength.
• Sections 6 and 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court — Provide for the sufficiency of a complaint or information, requiring that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be averred to allow the accused to prepare for their defense; the Court noted that objections to the sufficiency of allegations must be raised during trial, otherwise they are deemed waived.