People vs. Baturiano

A conspirator who holds the victim's arms to render him helpless while companions stab him is liable as co-principal for murder qualified by treachery, even without delivering the fatal blows, where the synchronized acts manifest a common design and employ means ensuring execution without risk from defense.

Billy Baturiano, Fernando Dulot, Felipe Baturiano, and Gomer Baturiano were residents of Little Grace Park, a squatter's area in Meycauayan, Bulacan, as was 16-year-old Dajohn Bautista and his friend Braulo Rosete. The prosecution charged the four under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for murder qualified by circumstances such as evident premeditation and treachery.

Florinda Bautista left her house in Little Grace Park, Meycauayan, Bulacan in the afternoon of 30 July 1995 to report for work at a garments factory, leaving her 16-year-old son Dajohn Bautista at home. At about seven o'clock that evening, Dajohn was with his friend Braulo Rosete at Dajohn's house when the two went to Aling Chedeng's store, about 20 meters away, to get cigarettes. At the store they encountered Felipe Baturiano, who blamed them for the loss of his wallet, prompting the two teenagers to hurriedly leave and return to Dajohn's house.

After some time, the two friends went back to the same store to buy bottles of beer. Felipe Baturiano was still there and suddenly threw teargas, of the kind used by guards, at them. Dajohn was able to dodge, but Braulo was hit and suffered eye pain, so Dajohn guided him back to Dajohn's house to rest. About thirty minutes later, after recovering, Braulo insisted on going home and asked Dajohn to accompany him.

On the way, the two were accosted by Billy Baturiano and Fernando Dulot alias Pandoy, who appeared to be having a drinking spree, with Dulot wielding a double-bladed knife. According to Braulo, Dulot attempted to stab Dajohn, prompting Braulo to yell a warning. Dajohn ran about ten meters and would have escaped had Felipe Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano not blocked his way and caught up with him. Billy Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano then each held one of Dajohn's arms and hands — Billy the right, Gomer the left — rendering him trapped and defenseless, while Dulot stabbed him three times with the double-bladed knife and Felipe stabbed him twice with an icepick before all four scampered into the night. Braulo surmised the motive might have been that Dajohn was then courting Billy Baturiano's daughter.

Dr. Benito Caballero's autopsy found three fatal wounds — one superficial wound on the upper chest caused by a pointed and bladed instrument and two wounds on the right thorax likely caused by an icepick — plus a bigger wound on the right arm, with death due to shock from massive external and internal hemorrhage from multiple stab wounds penetrating the right lung, heart, and large intestines. The heart wound was decidedly fatal, leaving little chance of survival even with immediate medical attention. For his defense, Billy Baturiano claimed alibi that since six o'clock that evening he was at neighbor Ananias Ysrael's house about 100 meters from the scene, conversing about carpentry repair work, until an unidentified woman shouted that someone had been stabbed, after which he and Ysrael went to the scene, learned from bystanders that Dulot had stabbed Dajohn, and went home. Ysrael corroborated the alibi, while prosecution rebuttal witness Joselito Lique, vice-president of the Samahan ng Mahihirap sa Little Grace Park II and resident since 1979, claimed no knowledge of an Ananias Ysrael residing in the area, to which Baturiano rejoined with a certification that Ysrael belonged to the separate Samahan ng Urban Poor.

• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in inclining to give faith and credit to the prosecution over the defense.
• Single Eyewitness Testimony: Petitioner maintained that the testimony of single witness Braulio Rosete was not convincing and trustworthy enough to support guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Alibi: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in declaring the defense of alibi inherently weak and worthless and in not giving faith and credit to defense evidence.
• Guilt for Murder and Penalty: Petitioner maintained that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
• Damages: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in awarding P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P30,000.00 actual expenses, and P50,000.00 exemplary damages, and that he should be acquitted and held liable for no damages.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Eyewitness Testimony: Whether the testimony of single eyewitness Braulo Rosete was credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite lack of minute details.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: Whether accused-appellant's alibi, even if corroborated, can prevail over positive identification by an eyewitness without shown ill motive.
• Conspiracy: Whether the concerted and synchronized acts of the four accused in waylaying, holding, and stabbing the victim established conspiracy making each liable as co-principal.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation attended the killing where conspiracy was merely implied from concerted actions at commission without proof of when the plan was hatched.
• Treachery and Penalty: Whether treachery qualified the killing to murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, there being no additional aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
• Civil Liability: Whether the awards of civil indemnity, actual expenses, and exemplary damages were supported by proof and prevailing jurisprudence.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Eyewitness Testimony: Yes. The eyewitness account was found credible, with inadequacies in minor details disregarded as indicia of an unrehearsed witness, credibility being best addressed by the trial court.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: No. Alibi cannot stand against positive identification by an eyewitness not shown to have ill motive, especially where the claimed distance was only about 100 meters.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established by concurrence of sentiments, joint purpose, and concerted action with closeness and coordination in blocking, holding, and stabbing the victim.
• Evident Premeditation: No. Evident premeditation was not appreciated, conspiracy being merely implied from concerted acts at commission without proof of prior cool thought, reflection, and sufficient lapse of time.
• Treachery and Penalty: Yes. Treachery qualified the killing to murder, warranting reclusion perpetua absent additional aggravating or mitigating circumstances under the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
• Civil Liability: Partly. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was sustained, but actual damages were reduced to proven P15,000.00 funeral expenses and exemplary damages reduced to P20,000.00.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Eyewitness Testimony: The detailed narration of Braulo Rosete sufficiently bared accused-appellant's participation in waylaying Dajohn, holding his hands and arms to permit the stabbing. Inability to relate minute details, such as pinpointing the exact part of hands and arms held, was no serious flaw, since courts disregard inadequacies in minor details and even treat inconsequential discrepancies as indications of an unrehearsed witness. The question of credibility is best addressed by the trial court for reasons repeatedly adverted to in prior holdings.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: The alibi situating accused-appellant about 100 meters from the scene did not persuade, particularly as he himself admitted the short distance, which did not preclude presence at the crime scene. Axiomatically, alibi even when corroborated cannot overcome positive identification by an eyewitness not shown to have ill motive for testifying falsely. The claim of innocence from not escaping was belied by the record showing the 13 November 1995 warrant returned unserved on 17 February 1996, archiving on 06 March 1996, and arrest only on 07 October 1997.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy exists upon agreement of two or more persons concerning commission of a felony and decision to commit it, characterized as concurrence of sentiments, joint purpose, and concerted action manifested by specific acts with closeness and coordination. The four malefactors collectively pursued the common unlawful design of eliminating the victim: after Dajohn initially eluded appellant and Dulot, Felipe and Gomer blocked his path, then appellant and Gomer held his hands and arms to render him helpless while Dulot and Felipe stabbed him. Singularity of intent makes all conspirators liable as co-principals regardless of extent of participation, the act of one being the act of all, so proof that appellant delivered fatal blows was unnecessary.
• Evident Premeditation: Any circumstance qualifying killing to murder must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself. The essence of evident premeditation is execution preceded by cool thought and reflection within sufficient time to arrive at calm judgment. Although conspiracy has sometimes been regarded as indicative of premeditation, implied conspiracy from concerted actions at commission does not automatically establish premeditation without proof of how and when the plan was hatched or time elapsed to show dispassionate consideration. To sustain premeditation, prior determination, meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt must appear, including when intent was engendered, motive, means selected beforehand, and antecedents showing cold meditation and tenacious persistence, none of which the prosecution proved.
• Treachery and Penalty: Treachery exists when the assailant employs means, methods, or forms tending directly and specially to insure execution without risk from defense the offended party might make. Treachery indubitably attended the killing through silently lying in wait, sudden and unexpected appearance, well-calculated synchronized execution, holding the victim defenseless before fatal stabbing, and the sheer numbers and combined strength of four grown men against a 16-year-old, least affording opportunity to flee or defend. With treachery qualifying the killing to murder under the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659 prescribing reclusion perpetua to death, and with neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, imposition of reclusion perpetua was without error.
• Civil Liability: The P50,000.00 award for death by way of civil indemnity was correct under jurisprudence. The full P30,000.00 actual expenses could not be sustained for lack of competent proof, except the P15,000.00 funeral expense supported by the contract with Boy Villarin Funeral Homes, the wake expenses resting only on an uncorroborated handwritten grocery list from one Amelita Penuliar who was not presented. Exemplary damages of P50,000.00 were reduced to P20,000.00 conformably with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Credibility of witnesses; minor inconsistencies — In assessing veracity, courts disregard inadequacies in minor details of testimony, and inconsequential discrepancies are often considered indications that the witness is unrehearsed. Credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court. Applied to sustain Braulo Rosete's account despite inability to relate minute details such as the exact part of hands and arms held.
• Alibi vs. positive identification — Alibi, even when corroborated, cannot stand against positive identification by an eyewitness not shown to have ill motive for testifying falsely against the accused. Applied to reject Billy Baturiano's claim of being 100 meters away at a neighbor's house.
• Conspiracy as mode of commission — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning commission of a felony and decide to commit it, characterized as concurrence of sentiments, joint purpose, and concerted action manifested by specific acts with closeness and coordination. Applied to the synchronized waylaying, blocking, holding, and stabbing showing a shared design to eliminate the victim.
• Act of one conspirator is act of all; co-principals — Singularity in intent makes all conspirators liable as co-principals regardless of extent and character of participation; the prosecution need not prove all conspirators hit and killed the victim where coordinated acts manifest a clearly shared design. Applied to hold Baturiano liable though he only held the victim while others stabbed.
• Evident premeditation; proof required — The essence is execution preceded by cool thought and reflection within sufficient time to arrive at calm judgment, requiring proof of prior determination resulting from meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt, including when intent was engendered, motive, means selected, and lapse of time. Implied conspiracy from concerted acts at commission alone does not establish premeditation. Applied to reject premeditation for absence of proof of hatching and reflection period.
• Qualifying circumstances must be proven as indubitably as killing — Any circumstance qualifying killing to murder must be proven with the same certainty as the killing itself. Applied to require strict proof of premeditation and treachery.
• Treachery — Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in execution tending directly and specially to insure execution without risk from defense the offended party might make. Applied to the ambush, suddenness, holding defenseless, and numerical superiority against a 16-year-old.
• Civil indemnity, actual and exemplary damages in murder — Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for death is awarded as a matter of jurisprudence; actual damages require competent proof, and exemplary damages are adjusted to prevailing jurisprudence. Applied to sustain P50,000.00 indemnity, reduce actual damages to proven P15,000.00 funeral expenses, and reduce exemplary damages to P20,000.00.

• "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." — States the statutory definition of conspiracy used to anchor liability of all four malefactors as co-principals.
• "It is also axiomatic that an alibi, even when corroborated, cannot stand in the face of the positive identification of an eyewitness" — Articulates the controlling rule rejecting Baturiano's corroborated alibi in light of Rosete's positive identification.
• "Treachery exists when, in the commission of the crime, the assailant employs means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make." — Provides the canonical formulation of treachery applied to qualify the killing to murder.
• "The essence of evident premeditation is the execution of the criminal act preceded by cool thought and reflection within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment." — Defines evident premeditation to explain why implied conspiracy alone could not sustain the circumstance.

• People vs. Fuertes, 229 SCRA 289 — Cited for disregarding inadequacies in minor details and treating inconsequential discrepancies as indicia of an unrehearsed witness.
• People vs. Calope, 224 SCRA 413 — Cited to support that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by an eyewitness.
• People vs. Javier, 229 SCRA 638 — Cited on absence of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying against the accused.
• People vs. Sumbillo, 271 SCRA 428 — Cited to characterize conspiracy as concurrence of sentiments and joint purpose.
• People vs. Azugue, 268 SCRA 711 — Cited on conspiracy manifested by performance of specific acts with closeness and coordination.
• People vs. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26 — Cited for the rule that the act of one conspirator is the act of all and all are liable as co-principals.
• People vs. Daen, Jr., 244 SCRA 382 — Cited for the rule that a qualifying circumstance must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself.
• People vs. Durante, 53 Phil 363 — Cited to define the essence of evident premeditation as cool thought and reflection.
• People vs. Jamiro, 279 SCRA 290 — Cited to support finding treachery from the manner of execution against a defenseless victim.
• People vs. Veras, Jr., 201 SCRA 551 — Cited to sustain the P50,000.00 civil indemnity for death.

• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy as agreement of two or more persons concerning commission of a felony and decision to commit it; applied to establish joint liability from synchronized acts.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — Defines and punishes murder qualified by treachery or evident premeditation with reclusion perpetua to death; applied to qualify the killing by treachery and impose reclusion perpetua absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Melo, J., Panganiban, J., Gonzaga-Reyes, J., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., concur.