People vs. Causi

Conspiracy and principal liability for murder are established by an extrajudicial confession corroborated by autopsy findings of wounds from two distinct weapons, while evident premeditation requires only a sufficient interval between resolve and execution; treachery and relationship by affinity cannot aggravate absent proof of means insuring execution without risk and of the victim's higher degree of relationship, respectively. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance remaining, the imposable penalty was the medium period, reclusion perpetua.

Baltazar Causi was the brother-in-law of Roque Estrada, the latter having married Causi's sister Sofia Causi, with whom he had three children. Lucas Canitan was a separate acquaintance who had been in Guam, Marianas Islands, and Felipe Cordon was a companion drawn into the evening's events. No commercial or contractual relationship connected the parties; the context material to motive lay in alleged marital infidelity and abandonment involving Estrada and members of both Causi's and Canitan's families.

On September 24, 1951, at about 5:00 in the afternoon, Lucas Canitan called on Baltazar Causi in the latter's hut at barrio Dabong, Janiuay, Iloilo. Both drank tuba, and after some drinks they plotted to kill Roque Estrada. Canitan's grievance was that while he was in Guam he had been informed by one Claudio Alfaras that his wife and Estrada had illicit relations and that Estrada had bragged of repeated carnal relations with Canitan's wife. Causi's ill feeling was that Estrada, his brother-in-law, had abandoned his wife Sofia Causi and their three children, had dishonored Causi's younger sister Saturnina Causi who gave birth to a child, and had gone to live with another woman in Antique whom he also abandoned, leaving his wife and children to be supported by her parents.

A little later Felipe Cordon joined the two in drinking tuba, after which Canitan and Causi invited him to go serenading. Cordon accepted and, at their request, borrowed the banjo in the house of Julio Seniego. At about 8:00 o'clock p.m., Causi, Canitan and Cordon left the hut ostensibly to serenade, but upon reaching the place of Solvestre Mamon in the same barrio, Canitan, armed with a jungle knife and a flashlight, told his companions to wait downstairs as he went up the house. The two heard Canitan ask Mamon who was in the house, and Mamon answered it was he; pressed further, Mamon said Pare Roque Estrada was also there. Canitan immediately searched for Estrada with his flashlight, whereupon a scuffle and struggle ensued between Canitan and Estrada for possession of the jungle knife, which Estrada failed to wrest from his assailant.

A few moments later Estrada leaped from the house followed by Canitan, who chased him as he tried to escape. Canitan and Causi ran after Estrada until Canitan caught up and stabbed him, and as Estrada fell, Causi struck Estrada's forehead with his bolo (ginunting). Canitan then knelt on the prostrate body lying on its back and kept stabbing until Estrada expired. When Canitan thought the victim dead, he asked Cordon to help carry the body, which the three buried about knee deep in an isolated muddy place near a stream not far from the killing site, then repaired to the house of Espiridion Suresca.

In the evening of September 25, 1951, a police team headed by Cpl. Engada arrested Causi and Canitan in the barrio, and in the inquiry both admitted participation in Estrada's death. Cordon was also apprehended and, asked who had killed the deceased, answered that Causi and Canitan had killed him. On the morning of September 26, 1951, the peace officers brought the suspects to where they said they had buried Estrada; upon police instruction the body was exhumed, placed in a hammock, loaded in a truck by Canitan and Causi, and brought to the municipal building of Janiuay. That same day Dr. Amadeo B. San Diego, president of the Sanitary Division of Janiuay, examined the cadaver and certified an odorous body dead more than 36 hours, multiple stab wounds in the head, chest and abdomen with intestines protruding from the abdominal wound, due to external violence with sharp instruments, the immediate cause of death being shock and hemorrhage. He further testified that the chest and abdominal wounds were caused by thrusts of a sharp-pointed instrument while the head wounds were caused by slashing with the blade of a sharp bladed instrument like a ginunting producing elongated clean-cut margins, and that the fatal wounds could have been produced by two instruments, a bolo (ginunting) and a jungle knife. Justice of the Peace Nicolas A. Latero testified that before appellant, Cordon and Canitan signed their respective affidavits (Exhibits A, B and C) he translated the contents in their local dialect, made them understand signing meant admitting contents and guilt, and that they signed without bodily harm, force or violence, particularly as to Causi.

According to appellant, he took no part in the killing of his brother-in-law, a version corroborated by co-defendant Felipe Cordon, who with Canitan had been convicted but did not appeal. The lower courts, however, credited the confessions and medical findings over the denial, with the last trial court finding Causi guilty as principal and appreciating treachery and relationship by affinity to impose death.

• Non-participation: Appellant denied having taken part in the killing of his brother-in-law Roque Estrada, a denial corroborated by the testimony of co-defendant Felipe Cordon that appellant had taken no part in the killing.

• Conspiracy and Participation: Whether appellant conspired with Lucas Canitan and participated as principal in the killing of Roque Estrada.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime.
• Treachery: Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime.
• Relationship by Affinity: Whether relationship by affinity should aggravate the crime where the deceased was appellant's brother-in-law.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of death or reclusion perpetua should be imposed in light of the attendant circumstances.

• Conspiracy and Participation: Yes. Conspiracy and principal participation were established by appellant's clear confession corroborated by autopsy proof that the wounds required two weapons and two assailants.
• Evident Premeditation: Yes. The resolve formed at about 5:30 p.m. and execution past 8:00 p.m. showed reflection preceding the killing.
• Treachery: No. No means insuring execution without risk was shown, and the prior struggle for the knife negated surprise and defenselessness.
• Relationship by Affinity: No. Mere admission that the victim was a brother-in-law, without proof he was of higher degree than the offender, does not aggravate.
• Proper Penalty: Reclusion perpetua. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the medium period was imposable.

• Conspiracy and Participation: Denial could not prevail over appellant's clear and convincing confession of guilt in his affidavit (Exhibit A) signed four days after the crime, after translation into the local dialect and warning that signing admitted contents and guilt, without force or violence. Corroboration lay in the autopsy: chest and abdominal wounds by thrust of a sharp-pointed instrument and head wounds by slashing with a bladed instrument producing elongated clean-cut margins, of a size, nature and position not inflictible by one person alone. Immediate post-arrest admissions before Cpl. Engada that Causi used the bolo (ginunting) while Canitan used the jungle knife further confirmed joint execution.
• Evident Premeditation: The scheme was plotted and decided by appellant and Canitan at about 5:30 in the afternoon of September 24, 1951, while the slaying occurred past 8:00 that evening. The lapse demonstrated that meditation and reflection preceded execution, satisfying the qualifying circumstance.
• Treachery: Nothing in the evidence showed employment of means, methods or forms tending to insure execution without risk to the offenders. On the contrary, Canitan and Estrada struggled for possession of the knife inside Mamon's house before Estrada leaped to escape and was pursued, conduct inconsistent with a sudden, defenseless attack.
• Relationship by Affinity: Other than appellant's admission that the deceased was his brother-in-law, no evidence established that the offended party stood in a higher degree of relationship than the offender. Absent such proof, affinity could not be deemed aggravating.
• Proper Penalty: With evident premeditation qualifying the killing as murder but with treachery and affinity rejected and no mitigating circumstance shown, there remained neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. Accordingly, the penalty was fixed at the medium period, reclusion perpetua, with the remainder of the sentence affirmed.

• Conspiracy proved by confession corroborated by physical findings — A denial of conspiracy and participation fails against a clear and convincing extrajudicial confession voluntarily executed after explanation of its import, especially where autopsy findings demonstrate wounds by two distinct weapons and in positions not inflictible by a single actor, establishing joint execution as principals.
• Evident premeditation — The circumstance requires that the resolve to kill be preceded by meditation and reflection, shown by an interval between plotting and execution sufficient for reflection. Applied here, a plan formed at about 5:30 p.m. and carried out past 8:00 p.m. on the same day satisfied the requisite.
• Treachery — Treachery requires proof that the offender employed means, methods or forms insuring execution without risk to himself arising from defense the victim might make. It was held absent where the victim struggled with an assailant for the weapon and then fled while being chased, negating a defenseless, assured execution.
• Relationship by affinity as aggravating circumstance — Affinity aggravates only upon proof, beyond mere admission of the label brother-in-law, that the offended party is of a higher degree in the relationship than the offender. Without such proof, the circumstance was not applied.
• Penalty with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance — Where murder is qualified but neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attend, the penalty is imposed in its medium period. Thus reclusion perpetua, not death, was imposed.

• "The denial by the appellant of conspiracy with Lucas Canitan and participation in the killing of his brother-in-law cannot be given credence in view of the clear and convincing confession of his guilt in his affidavit (Exhibit A), signed four days after the commission of the crime." — States the core evidentiary ratio for affirming principal liability, preferring voluntary confession corroborated by medical findings over bare denial.
• "The aggravating circumstance of treachery cannot be taken into account for there is nothing in the evidence to show that the appellant and his co-defendants employed means, methods or forms in the commission to insure its execution and without risk to themselves." — Formulates the controlling test for treachery and explains its rejection on these facts.
• "Except an admission by the appellant that the deceased was his brother-in-law, relationship by affinity should not be deemed to aggravate the crime in the absence of evidence to show that the offended party is of a higher degree in the relationship than that of the offender." — Defines the limit on using affinity as aggravating and justifies disregarding it here.
• "There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed, as is hereby imposed, is the medium period or reclusion perpetua." — States the sentencing consequence after qualifying the killing as murder but rejecting the claimed aggravating circumstances.

• People vs. Bangug, 52 Phil. 87 — Cited in support of the finding that evident premeditation preceded the commission of the crime where the resolve was formed hours before execution.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.