People vs. Dearo

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt; the circumstances must be consistent with each other, support the hypothesis of guilt, and be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. The SC applied this rule to affirm the murder convictions of Dearo and Toledo.

Paulino Luague and Porferia Luague Guardario were siblings and heirs to a vast tract of land in Bayawan, Negros Oriental; Emeterio Santiago was the overseer of that land. The sharing of the inheritance was disputed among the heirs, and Emeterio's appointment as overseer became a source of animosity.

On the evening of 26 February 1996, Jose Jaro, Emeterio Santiago and his son Rolly, Porferia Luague Guardario and her daughter Analiza were attending a fiesta celebration at Bugay, Bayawan, Negros Oriental. Porferia was the sister of Paulino Luague, and Emeterio was the overseer of the Luague family land. Around midnight, Emeterio asked Jose whether they could spend the night in Jose's house, which was only about 500 meters away from the dancing area. Jose agreed and told Emeterio, Porferia, and Analiza to proceed to his house while he looked for Rolly. Jose eventually found Rolly, and both followed the three others to Jose's home.

When Jose and Rolly were about 10 meters away, they heard a single gunshot coming from the house. The two went down on the ground for safety as they saw Paulino Luague coming down from Jose's house, saying "Ti, tapos ka man!" (There, now you are finished!). Immediately after, they heard cries of women from inside the house asking for help, followed by a rapid series of gunfire from the back of the house. When the firing stopped, they saw Ricardo Dearo and Wilfredo Toledo, both carrying long firearms, walk with Luague from the back of the house towards the road. The three had other companions, but Jose and Rolly were not able to identify them. After appellants left, Jose and Rolly went inside the house and saw Emeterio on the floor, already dead. Porferia was lying nearby, also dead, while Analiza was still moaning in pain. Rolly wasted no time in looking for a vehicle to bring the victims to the hospital, but Analiza was later also pronounced dead.

Authorities from the Bayawan police station arrived in the house on the afternoon of 27 February 1996 to investigate. Both Jose and Rolly opted not to divulge any information to them. Instead, Rolly sought the help of the elements of the Criminal Investigation System (CIS) of Dumaguete City for investigation. In the course of the investigation, it was found that the Luague family owned a vast tract of land in Bayawan, Negros Oriental. It was the subject of a sharing dispute between the heirs, including Luague and his sister Porferia. Part of the dispute involved the appointment of Emeterio as overseer of the land, a move that angered Luague. The animosity deepened when Emeterio padlocked the old house of Aquilino Luague, father of Luague and Porferia.

A few days before the incident, or on 24 February 1996, at around 10:00 a.m., Luague and appellants Dearo and Toledo asked Jose Santiago, brother of Emeterio, to accompany them to the old house to remove the padlock. While there, Jose Santiago heard appellant Dearo berating Aquilino's tenants in this wise: "You tenants, you believe everything Emeterio tells you. He is not from here. There is no Emeterio Santiago living in Bugay. If only he was here, I would show you how I’d kill him. Before the end of three days, I’ll finish him!" Marcelo Guardario, husband of Porferia and father of Analiza, confirmed the existence of a land dispute between his wife and her siblings. They used to reside in Bugay, Bayawan, Negros Oriental, but decided to relocate to Cebu when Luague threatened that they would lose a family member if they returned to Bugay. There was even a time when Luague pointed a gun at Porferia with the same threats. The latest confrontation between brother and sister was on 26 February 1996, when the police advised Luague that he could not prevent Porferia from attending to the farm.

On 4 June 1996, in three Informations, Dearo, Luague, and Toledo were charged with murder, all committed by conspiracy and attended by treachery and evident premeditation. During trial, appellant Dearo interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He stated that he was at the fiesta celebration until 1:00 a.m. of 27 February 1996 and arrived home about 2:00 a.m. together with his family. He denied being with Luague and Toledo and stated that he only learned about the incident from Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Georgin Sefe and Police Officer 3 (PO3) Napoleon Tuble of the Bayawan police station on the afternoon of 27 February 1996. He heard the police officers ask Jose and his wife about the details regarding the incident, and they categorically answered that they could not say anything, because they were not present when it happened. This statement was corroborated by the police officers, who said that they failed to file a case concerning the incident, because nobody could give them any information. When SPO2 Sefe and PO3 Tuble went to the house of Jose on the afternoon of 27 February 1996, they only saw bullet holes in the wall of the house and three empty shells of an M-16 rifle. When they sought the other members of the victims' family, they could not name any suspect. Jose and Rolly testified that there was sufficient illumination for them to recognize appellants, who were all well-known to one another: Dearo was the barangay captain, Toledo was a known Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) member, and Luague was Jose's close friend. Jose initially did not want to get involved and only told his relatives about what he saw; he was so scared for his life, considering that the killing took place in his house, that he moved from Bugay, Bayawan, Negros Oriental, after the incident. A ballistic examination of the recovered metallic fragments and cartridge cases showed that they were fired from an M-16 rifle. The prosecution and even the defense confirmed that the victims were sleeping when they were shot; Emeterio was asleep when shot, while the women were able to cry for help before the rapid firing silenced them.

• Due Process: Appellants decried the alleged violation of due process due to the supposed partiality and vindictiveness of Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellants pointed out the lack or insufficiency of evidence, which did not satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Identification and Lighting: Appellants argued that the alleged insufficiency of lighting at the scene of the incident was not enough to make a positive identification of them as the assailants.
• Jose's Initial Silence: Appellants alleged that Jose never mentioned the name of any suspect when the Bayawan police interviewed him and only came up with one when the CIS came into the picture.
• Bayawan Police Investigation: Appellants relied on the alleged finding of the Bayawan police that the assailants were "unknown" and that the result of its investigation was "negative," insisting that the Bayawan police had not filed a case against anybody because of lack of information.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the guilt of Dearo and Toledo for the three murders was proven beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence.
• Identification: Whether Dearo and Toledo were positively identified as the assailants despite the alleged insufficiency of lighting and Jose's initial failure to name suspects to the Bayawan police.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killings as murder.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation attended the killings.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and the amounts of damages were proper.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Yes. The SC held that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence satisfied Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, because the proven circumstances were consistent with each other, supported guilt, and excluded innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
• Identification: Yes. The SC found that Jose and Rolly positively identified Dearo and Toledo under sufficient illumination and that the appellants were well-known to the witnesses; Jose's initial silence to the Bayawan police did not destroy his credibility.
• Treachery: Yes. The SC held that treachery qualified the killings because the victims were sleeping or had just been awakened and were in no position to defend themselves.
• Evident Premeditation: Yes. The SC held that evident premeditation attended the killings because the resolution to kill was preceded by cool thought and reflection, with sufficient time between the prior threats and the shooting.
• Penalty and Damages: Yes. The SC held that the crime was murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, but because Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited the death penalty, the penalty was reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; the damages were modified accordingly.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The SC applied Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court because no witness saw the actual shooting. The rule requires more than one circumstance, that the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and that the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The SC cited People vs. Deocampo, People vs. Abdulah, and Bastian vs. CA for the requirement that the circumstances be consistent with each other, support the hypothesis of guilt, and be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. The SC then enumerated the proven circumstances: Luague's land dispute with Porferia and prior threats against her; Emeterio's role as overseer; Dearo's vow to kill Emeterio three days before the killing; Jose and Rolly hearing a gunshot from the house and seeing Luague come out saying "Ti, tapos ka man!"; hearing women's cries for help followed by rapid gunfire from the back of the house; seeing Dearo and Toledo emerge from the back carrying long firearms; finding the victims with gunshot wounds inside the house; and the ballistic examination showing that the recovered metallic fragments and cartridge cases were fired from an M-16 rifle. The SC held that these circumstances, proven by the prosecution and uncontroverted by the defense, combined to leave no reasonable doubt that the appellants conspired to kill the victims.
• Identification: The SC rejected the argument that the alleged insufficiency of lighting prevented positive identification. Jose and Rolly testified that there was sufficient illumination for them to recognize appellants. The SC also noted that the parties were well-known to one another: Dearo was the barangay captain, Toledo was a known CAFGU member, and Luague was Jose's close friend. On the alleged inconsistency that Jose did not name any suspect to the Bayawan police, the SC approved the CA's observation that Jose initially did not want to get involved and only told his relatives what he saw; he was scared for his life because the killing took place in his house, and he moved from Bugay after the incident. The SC also held that the Bayawan police's "unknown" assailant and "negative" investigation findings did not weaken the prosecution, because Jose and Rolly admitted that they chose not to divulge information to the Bayawan police, and Rolly chose to seek the help of the CIS in Dumaguete City.
• Treachery: The SC defined treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make. The SC cited People vs. Sally and People vs. Barcimo for the rule that treachery is present when the assailant takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is asleep, unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened. The SC found that the prosecution, and even the defense, confirmed that the victims were sleeping when they were shot. Emeterio was asleep when shot, while the women were able to cry for help before the rapid firing silenced them; the women were in no position to defend themselves, having been rudely awakened by the shooting of their companion. Their shouts for help showed their loss of hope in the face of rapid gunfire from long firearms.
• Evident Premeditation: The SC defined evident premeditation as requiring that the execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment, citing People vs. Belga. The SC found that Luague had a grudge against Porferia, and their last confrontation occurred a day before the shooting. The involvement of Dearo and Toledo was shown by Jose Santiago's testimony that the two were with Luague three days before the shooting, and Dearo then vowed to kill Emeterio. These uncontroverted pieces of evidence showed the instances when appellants resolved to commit the felony. The space of time from the resolution to the actual execution allowed them to contemplate the matter, or even reconsider; that they did not reconsider was shown by the case.
• Penalty and Damages: The SC held that the killings were murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. With evident premeditation as a generic aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty should have been applied under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, but the death penalty was prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346. The SC therefore imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346. On damages, the SC found the CA's awards of civil indemnity of ₱75,000 and temperate damages of ₱25,000 per victim in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence, citing People vs. Malicdem. Because the penalty should have been death but was reduced to reclusion perpetua without parole, the SC increased moral damages from ₱50,000 to ₱75,000 and exemplary damages from ₱25,000 to ₱30,000, citing People vs. Regalario. The awards earn interest at 6% from finality until fully paid.

• Circumstantial Evidence — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be consistent with each other, support the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and be inconsistent with the hypothesis that the accused is innocent. The SC applied this rule because no witness saw the actual shooting and upheld the conviction based on the combination of proven circumstances.
• Conspiracy — The SC upheld the finding that Dearo and Toledo conspired to kill the victims from the closeness and coordination of the acts before and immediately after the shooting, including Dearo's prior vow to kill Emeterio, Luague's statement after the first gunshot, and Dearo and Toledo emerging from the back of the house carrying long firearms. The combination of circumstances left no reasonable doubt that they acted in concert.
• Treachery — Treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make. It is present when the assailant takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is asleep, unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened. The SC applied it because the victims were sleeping when shot, and the women were rudely awakened and unable to defend themselves.
• Evident Premeditation — The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The SC applied it because Luague had a grudge against Porferia, the last confrontation was a day before the shooting, and Dearo vowed to kill Emeterio three days before the killing, giving appellants time to contemplate or reconsider.
• Penalty under Republic Act No. 9346 — When the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and an aggravating circumstance is present, the greater penalty is applied; but since Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited the death penalty, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 states that persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103. The SC applied this to impose reclusion perpetua without parole for each count.
• Damages when death penalty is reduced — The SC increased moral damages from ₱50,000 to ₱75,000 and exemplary damages from ₱25,000 to ₱30,000 because the penalty should have been death but was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, while civil indemnity of ₱75,000 and temperate damages of ₱25,000 per victim were in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence. The awards earn 6% legal interest from finality until fully paid.

• "Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." — The SC quoted Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court because no witness saw the actual shooting and conviction rested on circumstantial evidence.
• "Under the rule on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances shown must be consistent with each other. They should all support the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and, at the same time, be inconsistent with the hypothesis that the accused is innocent." — The SC stated the standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence before applying it to the proven circumstances.
• "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make." — The SC defined treachery and applied it to the sleeping victims who were in no position to defend themselves.
• "The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment." — The SC defined evident premeditation and found it from the prior threats and Dearo's vow to kill Emeterio.

• People vs. Deocampo, G.R. No. 185212, 15 February 2012, 666 SCRA 288 — Relied on for the application of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court when no witness has seen the actual commission of the crime.
• People vs. Abdulah, G.R. No. 182518, 20 January 2009, 576 SCRA 797 — Relied on for the requirement that the circumstances be consistent with each other, support guilt, and be inconsistent with innocence.
• Bastian vs. CA, 575 Phil. 42, 56 (2008) — Relied on for the rule that the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to guilt.
• People vs. Sally, G.R. No. 191254, 13 October 2010, 633 SCRA 293 — Relied on for the rule that treachery is present when the victim is asleep.
• People vs. Barcimo, 467 Phil. 709 (2004) — Relied on for the rule that treachery is present when the victim is unaware of the evil design or has just awakened.
• People vs. Belga, 328 Phil. 93, 114 (1996) — Relied on for the definition and essence of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, 12 November 2012, 685 SCRA 193 — Relied on for the award of civil indemnity and temperate damages in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence.
• People vs. Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, 31 March 2009, 582 SCRA 738 — Relied on for the increase of moral and exemplary damages when the penalty should have been death but was reduced to reclusion perpetua without parole.

• Section 4, Rule 133, Rules of Court — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The SC applied this because no witness saw the actual shooting.
• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make. The SC applied it because the victims were sleeping or had just awakened and were unable to defend themselves.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death. The SC applied it after qualifying the killings as murder through treachery.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides the rules for the application of indivisible penalties; when there is one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. The SC noted evident premeditation as a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, effective 24 June 2006. The SC applied it to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 9346 — States that persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103. The SC applied it to impose reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.