People vs. Carpio

The crime of murder requires proof of a qualifying circumstance beyond reasonable doubt; where treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength are not convincingly established, the crime committed is only homicide. The prosecution must prove each qualifying circumstance with the same quantum of evidence required for the crime itself; failure to do so results in the lesser offense of homicide being imposed.

Pedro Carpio and Pat. Luis Pacis, Jr. were neighbors in Narangtayan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, having purchased adjacent parcels of land from the same vendor. A serious rift developed between them when Pat. Pacis uprooted trees that appellant had planted on land that turned out to be within the lot bought by Pat. Pacis. The strained relationship was aggravated when Arnold Carpio, appellant's son, was reported by Pat. Pacis to the barangay captain for being drunk during curfew hours and was penalized by being made to clean the barangay auditorium. Edwin Bablis, appellant's first-degree cousin, arrived at appellant's house on February 14, 1979, and stayed for six days.

Pedro Carpio and Pat. Luis Pacis, Jr. were neighbors in Narangtayan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, having bought adjacent parcels of land from the same vendor. When Pat. Pacis decided to erect a fence, he met with the vendor and appellant to define their boundaries. It turned out that some trees planted by appellant on what he thought was his lot were actually inside the lot bought by Pat. Pacis, who uprooted them, causing a serious rift between the two. Appellant thereafter challenged Pat. Pacis to a fight but was ignored. At another time, Arnold Carpio, appellant's son, was reported by Pat. Pacis to the barangay captain for being drunk during curfew hours and was made to clean the barangay auditorium as penalty, after which appellant, while drunk, again challenged Pat. Pacis to a fight but the latter kept his cool.

On February 14, 1979, Edwin Bablis, appellant's cousin and co-accused, visited and stayed for six days in appellant's house. In the morning of February 20, 1979, appellant and Bablis were seen riding on the former's motorcycle proceeding westward toward Claveria, Cagayan. Once in Claveria, appellant left Bablis at a store along the national highway in Pantoon and proceeded to the municipal hall, where he asked Cesar Domingo about Pat. Pacis' whereabouts. After being informed that Pat. Pacis was about to leave, appellant told Cesar Domingo "kursunada ko siya" and then went eastward on his motorcycle.

While Pat. Pacis was passing by the store where appellant left Bablis, the latter clapped his hands, attracting Pat. Pacis' attention, causing him to stop his motorcycle. Bablis approached and requested a hitch, which Pat. Pacis acceded to, and both rode on the motorcycle. While negotiating a sharp curve at barangay Dibalio, Claveria, they were seen by Virgilio Ravelo, who was driving a jeepney.

Francisco Palpallatoc, a prosecution eyewitness, testified that at Camalaggaoan mountain in barangay Culao, while riding his motorcycle going westward toward Claveria, he saw four persons quarreling about 50 meters ahead. He stopped to observe and saw Bablis holding the right hand of Pat. Pacis from behind as Pedro Carpio, fronting Pat. Pacis, stabbed the latter on the breast while Arnold Carpio delivered fist blows on different parts of Pat. Pacis' body. When the victim freed himself and ran toward Palpallatoc, the three gave chase, with Bablis shooting at Pat. Pacis five times with a short firearm but missing. The three stopped at Palpallatoc's position, warned him not to reveal what he saw, and ordered him to leave. At the scene, Palpallatoc noticed a motorcycle, a fatigue cap, and a pair of colored sunglasses. Despite passing several police checkpoints, Palpallatoc did not report what he witnessed.

When Pfc. Ambrocio Arizabal, OIC of the Police Station of Claveria, received information from a jeepney driver that Pat. Pacis' motorcycle was parked near Camalaggaoan mountain, he sent Pat. Arturo Somera and Pat. Bonifacio Tabaldo to investigate. They found the motorcycle but not Pat. Pacis. After checking hospitals and finding no accident report, they returned to the area and discovered a trail leading to a ravine about 10 meters deep, where they saw the lifeless body of Pat. Pacis, his fatigue uniform hanging on a branch of a narra tree, his rubber shoes, and a black belt with a buckle marked "boys scout of the Philippines." The postmortem examination conducted by the Municipal Health Officer revealed multiple stab wounds, incised wounds, a bite mark, skin avulsion, and extensive abrasions, with the cause of death being profuse hemorrhage from a stab wound at the right parasternal area.

Sgt. Francisco Vinagrera, Chief Investigator of the 115th PC Company, investigated Pedro Carpio on February 20, 1979, based on information from Patricio Lazo, to whom Palpallatoc had confided what he saw. On May 1, 1979, Palpallatoc was brought to the residence of Atty. Rafael Pacis, brother of the victim, and executed an affidavit regarding the incident, giving another statement on May 3, 1979.

The defense presented alibi and simple denial. Pedro Carpio contended that he left his house at 6:30 in the morning of February 20, 1979, arrived at Taggat Industries Incorporated at 7:00, reported for work, and never left the compound until 4:00 in the afternoon. Arnold Carpio stated that he woke up at 6:30, played basketball, piled firewood, helped his mother cook, took a bath, and ate lunch. Appellant alleged that Palpallatoc was rehearsed before testifying, that his testimony was incredible for failing to report the crime despite passing police precincts, that the victim could have requested assistance or borrowed a motorcycle to escape, that the victim was seen with only one companion before death, that he was at work when the crime was committed, and that no evidence proved conspiracy and evident premeditation.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the theory of the defense, specifically alleging that the key prosecution witness Francisco Palpallatoc was rehearsed before testifying, as shown by his being brought to the house of Atty. Rafael Pacis, brother of the victim, before giving his statement to the police.

• Incredibility of Testimony: Appellant maintained that Palpallatoc's testimony was incredible because he failed to report the commission of the crime to the police despite passing by several military and police precincts, and that if Palpallatoc were truly at the scene, the deceased could have requested his assistance or borrowed his motorcycle to escape when pursued by his attackers.

• Inconsistency in Number of Attackers: Appellant argued that since Pat. Pacis was seen with only one companion by Virgilio Ravelo prior to his death, he could not have been attacked by three men as claimed by Palpallatoc.

• Alibi: Appellant contended that he was at his place of work at Taggat Industries, Inc. when the crime was committed, and that his presence at the scene of the crime was not sufficiently proven.

• Lack of Conspiracy and Evident Premeditation: Appellant argued that no evidence was adduced to prove conspiracy and evident premeditation.

• Positive Identification: The prosecution relied on the positive identification of appellant by eyewitness Francisco Palpallatoc, whose credibility was not successfully assailed, as the one who stabbed Pat. Pacis while the victim's right hand was being held by Bablis from behind.

• Coordinated Acts: The prosecution established conspiracy through the coordinated acts of the assailants, where Bablis held the victim's hand while Carpio stabbed him and Arnold delivered fist blows, and when the victim escaped, the accused gave chase and Bablis shot at him five times.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and disregarding the defense's theory.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Murder: Whether the accused-appellant Pedro Carpio was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Treachery: Whether treachery attended the commission of the crime.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Abuse of Superior Strength: Whether the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Evident Premeditation: Whether the crime was attended by evident premeditation.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses were upheld, the appellate court not disturbing such findings absent certain facts overlooked that might affect the result of the case. The delay in reporting and the witness being brought to the house of a private prosecutor did not impair credibility.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Murder: No, as to murder. The conviction was affirmed but the crime was modified to homicide because the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Treachery: No. Treachery was not convincingly established because the victim was not rendered totally helpless and defenseless, as only his right hand was held while appellant stabbed him, and he succeeded in freeing himself and escaping about 100 meters.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Abuse of Superior Strength: No. The fact that two male persons attacked the victim does not per se establish abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim, nor of notorious inequality of forces.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Evident Premeditation: No. Evident premeditation cannot be considered where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out; the remark "kursunada ko siya" and the fact that appellant and Bablis were seen riding together do not prove determination to commit the crime.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court adhered to the rule that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless certain facts have been overlooked that might affect the result of the case. Palpallatoc's admission that he did not immediately report the incident because he was afraid was not a negative factor, as people are naturally reluctant to get involved in criminal prosecutions. The defense failed to prove that Palpallatoc was motivated by ill motive, and in the absence of convincing evidence of improper motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. The fact that the victim was seen with only one companion before his death was not incompatible with the finding that he was attacked by at least two men, as the places where Ravelo and Palpallatoc saw the victim were different.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Murder: The defense of alibi was unavailing because appellant was positively identified by Palpallatoc, whose credibility was not successfully assailed. In case of positive identification, alibi must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant failed to prove he was at work during the commission of the crime, not even requesting his co-employees to testify to confirm his presence. The defense of alibi merits outright rejection when it could have been corroborated by other persons and no such corroborating evidence was presented.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Treachery: For treachery to be appreciated, the culprits must have employed means directly and specially tending to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves, and such means of execution must have been deliberately or consciously adopted. The victim was not rendered totally helpless and defenseless because only his right hand was held while appellant stabbed him. The victim even succeeded in freeing himself and managed to escape about 100 meters from the scene. Since the trial court acquitted Arnold Carpio, only two persons took part in the commission of the crime.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Abuse of Superior Strength: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of in 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. The prosecution failed to prove notorious inequality between the ages, sizes, and strength of the antagonists and that these advantages were purposely sought or used by the accused.

• Qualifying Circumstances — Evident Premeditation: The trial court correctly found that the commission of the felony was not attended by the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. The fact that appellant and Bablis were seen riding together does not by itself prove they were determined to commit the crime. The remark "kursunada ko siya" uttered to Cesar Domingo does not constitute sufficient proof of determination to kill. Evident premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out.

In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is only homicide, punishable under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal. With no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The award of P40,000.00 was increased to P50,000.00 in line with the new policy of the Court to grant increased indemnity to the heirs of the deceased.

• Conspiracy — For conspiracy to exist, the evidence need not establish the actual agreement showing the preconceived plan, motive, interest, or purpose in the commission of the crime. Conspiracy is manifested in the coordinated acts of the assailants. In this case, conspiracy was established where Bablis was seen holding the victim's hand while Carpio stabbed him, Arnold delivered fist blows, and when the victim escaped, the accused gave chase and Bablis shot at him five times, showing the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.

• Treachery — For treachery to be appreciated, the culprits must have employed means directly and specially tending to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves, and such means of execution must have been deliberately or consciously adopted. Treachery was not established because the victim was not rendered totally helpless and defenseless, as only his right hand was held while appellant stabbed him, and he succeeded in freeing himself and escaping.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of in the commission of the crime. The fact that there were two male attackers does not per se establish abuse of superior strength absent proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim.

• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out. A remark expressing ill will toward the victim and the fact that the accused were seen riding together do not constitute sufficient proof of determination to kill.

• Alibi — In case of positive identification, the defense of alibi must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The defense of alibi merits outright rejection when it could have been corroborated by other persons and yet no such corroborating evidence was presented.

• "For treachery to be appreciated, the culprits must have employed means directly and specially tending to insure the without risk to themselves and that such means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted." — This passage defines the requisites of treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder and was applied to find that treachery was not established because the victim was not rendered totally helpless.

• "The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime." — This passage defines the standard for appreciating abuse of superior strength and was applied to reject this qualifying circumstance for lack of proof of notorious inequality.

• "Evident premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched, or what time elapsed before it was carried out." — This passage states the requirement for establishing evident premeditation and was applied to reject this qualifying circumstance because the prosecution failed to show when the plan was conceived.

• "In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is only homicide." — This passage states the controlling principle that the absence of qualifying circumstances reduces the crime from murder to homicide, resulting in the modification of the penalty.

• People vs. Abonada, G.R. No. 50041, January 27, 1989, 169 SCRA 530 — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that appellate courts will not disturb trial court findings on credibility of witnesses unless certain facts have been overlooked that might affect the result of the case.

• People vs. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520, February 21, 1989, 170 SCRA 497 — Cited as controlling precedent for the same rule on credibility of witnesses.

• Rodriguez vs. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 220-221 (1989) — Cited for the principle that mere delay in reporting a crime cannot reduce a witness's credibility, as people are naturally reluctant to get involved in criminal prosecutions.

• People vs. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681 — Cited for the presumption that in the absence of convincing evidence of improper motives, a prosecution witness's testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

• People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 32864, March 8, 1989, 171 SCRA 30 — Cited for the same presumption regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

• People vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989, 169 SCRA 730 — Cited for the rule that in case of positive identification, the defense of alibi must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that alibi merits outright rejection when it could have been corroborated by other persons.

• Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 595 (1988) — Cited for the principle that conspiracy need not be established by actual agreement showing a preconceived plan, as it can be manifested in coordinated acts.

• People vs. Tala, 141 SCRA 240 (1986) — Cited for the principle that conspiracy is manifested in the coordinated acts of the assailants.

• People vs. Maralit, 165 SCRA 427 (1988) — Cited for the principle that malefactors acting in concert pursuant to the same objective establish the presence of conspiracy.

• People vs. Rellon, 167 SCRA 75 (1988) — Cited for the definition of treachery, requiring means directly and specially tending to insure execution without risk to the culprits.

• People vs. Marciales, 166 SCRA 436 (1988) — Cited for the same definition of treachery.

• People vs. Cabato, G.R. No. L-37400, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 101 — Cited for the definition of abuse of superior strength, requiring notorious inequality of forces and the purposeful use of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.

• People vs. Corpus, 107 Phil. 44 (1960) — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation cannot be considered where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out.

• People vs. Acaya, No. 72998, July 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 768 — Cited for the same rule on evident premeditation.

• People vs. Daniel Sison, G.R. No. 86455, September 14, 1990 — Cited as the basis for increasing the civil indemnity from P40,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with the Court's new policy.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining and penalizing homicide with reclusion temporal. Applied because the prosecution failed to prove any qualifying circumstance, making the crime committed only homicide, not murder.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to impose an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concurred.