People vs. Gandia

An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. A co-accused who has withdrawn his appeal and whose conviction has become final and executory cannot be adversely affected by modifications introduced by the appellate court in the judgment on appeal.

Six accused—Damaso Gandia, Jerry Ramirez, Renato Olleres, Dante Gandia, Joel Gonzales, and Ernesto Calaripio—along with Eduardo Bagolbagol, were indicted for the murder of Louie Albuero outside the Ruby Disco Pub in Siniloan, Laguna, owned by Damaso. The case was originally tried in the Regional Trial Court, and the appeal was eventually routed through the Court of Appeals pursuant to People vs. Mateo, which required intermediate appellate review before elevation to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

At around midnight of June 27, 1993, Louie Albuero and his companions, including Francisco Serrano and Elpidio Serrano, were drinking at the Ruby Disco Pub on G. Redor Street, Siniloan, Laguna, owned by Damaso Gandia. Francisco pressed for more beer service, but as the pub was about to close, the request was denied. A club bouncer approached Francisco, and Pedro Serrano intervened to calm the parties. The victim and his companions settled their bill and left, during which empty bottles were thrown at them.

Irritated, Francisco and the victim returned. Damaso, standing at the main door, tried to play down the incident, but the victim boxed him. Pedro restrained Damaso and apologized for the victim's act. Not mollified, Damaso instructed his men to run after the victim and himself took his gun from the upper floor of the pub and fired it. The victim, Francisco, and Elpidio immediately fled, but Damaso and his men chased them.

Damaso and his men caught up with the victim, who stumbled and fell. As the victim lay prone, Gonzales, Dante, Ramirez, and Olleres stabbed him several times while Calaripio and Bagolbagol watched. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the General Cailles Memorial Hospital due to "hemorrhage, severe, secondary to stab wound-chest and abdomen." The Necropsy Report showed nine stab wounds and abrasions on different parts of his body.

Gonzales and Calaripio were arrested shortly after the incident. Bagolbagol surrendered the following day, June 29, 1993. Damaso fled to Bicol but surrendered a year later on June 28, 1994. Dante, Olleres, and Ramirez were arrested in Cardona, Rizal; San Pablo City; and Pasig City, respectively. All accused invoked alibi. The trial court convicted all six accused of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing five to reclusion perpetua and Calaripio to an indeterminate sentence due to his minority. Damaso, Dante, and Ramirez withdrew their appeals, and separate entries of judgment were made as to them. The remaining appellants, Olleres and Gonzales, argued that treachery was not alleged with sufficient specificity to qualify the killing as murder under Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but acquitted Calaripio and imposed ₱25,000 in exemplary damages on all five remaining accused, including Damaso, Dante, and Ramirez who had withdrawn their appeals.

• Reasonable Doubt: Appellants faulted the trial court for finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Appellants posited that they should only be held liable for homicide, as the aggravating circumstance of treachery was not alleged with specificity so as to qualify the killing to murder, pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure that took effect on December 31, 2000.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the guilt of appellants Olleres and Gonzales for murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Scope of Appellate Modification: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante—who had withdrawn their appeals and whose convictions had become final—to pay exemplary damages along with the remaining appellants.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the guilt of appellants Olleres and Gonzales was found well-taken; the prosecution established conspiracy and treachery.
• Scope of Appellate Modification: No. The appellate court erred in imposing exemplary damages on Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante, who had withdrawn their appeals. Their convictions had become final and executory, and the modification was not favorable to them.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court found the appellate court's affirmance of the guilt of Olleres and Gonzales well-taken. The prosecution's version established that Damaso instructed his men to chase the victim, and that Gonzales, Dante, Ramirez, and Olleres stabbed the victim several times as he lay prone on the ground, while Calaripio and Bagolbagol watched. The coordinated acts demonstrated conspiracy, and the manner of attack—multiple stab wounds inflicted on a prone victim—established treachery, qualifying the killing as murder.

• Scope of Appellate Modification: The trial court's decision insofar as Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante were concerned had become final and executory after they withdrew their appeals, and separate entries of judgment had been made. The appellate court was therefore bereft of the power to modify the trial court's judgment as to them. Even if the trial court erred in not awarding exemplary damages in the first place given the established presence of an aggravating circumstance, the award by the appellate court could not affect Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante because, in effect, they did not appeal and the modification was not favorable to them. Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. The imposition of additional exemplary damages was adverse, not favorable, to the non-appealing accused.

• Effect of appeal by several accused (Section 11, Rule 122, Rules of Court) — An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. A co-accused who has withdrawn his appeal and whose conviction has become final and executory cannot be adversely affected by modifications introduced by the appellate court in the judgment on appeal. The doctrine was applied to delete the award of exemplary damages against three accused who had withdrawn their appeals, as the additional monetary liability was adverse, not favorable, to them.

• "The trial court's decision in so far as Damaso, Ramirez and Dante are concerned had before become final and executory after they withdrew their appeal. Separate entries of judgment with respect to them had in fact been made. As such, the appellate court is bereft of the power to modify the trial court's judgment as to them." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: once a judgment becomes final as to a non-appealing accused, the appellate court loses jurisdiction to modify it adversely.

• "Even if the trial court erred in not awarding exemplary damages in the first place in light of the established presence of an aggravating circumstance, the award thereof by the appellate court cannot affect Damaso, Ramirez and Dante as, in effect, they did not appeal and it is not favorable to them." — This clarifies that the correctness of the trial court's omission is immaterial; the dispositive constraint is the finality of judgment and the unfavorable character of the modification.

• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640 — Controlling procedural precedent that modified the Rules of Criminal Procedure to require intermediate review by the Court of Appeals before elevation to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Pursuant to this ruling, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals.
• People vs. Medrano, 207 Phil. 516 (1983) — Followed as analogous authority. In Medrano, an accused who did not appeal was erroneously included as an appellant along with his co-accused; the Court amended the dispositive portion by deleting any reference to him. The principle was applied here to delete the exemplary damages award against the non-appealing accused.

• Section 11(a), Rule 122, Rules of Court — Provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Applied to bar the adverse modification of the judgment against Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante, who had withdrawn their appeals.
• Sections 8 and 9, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (effective Dec. 31, 2000) — Cited by appellants for the proposition that treachery must be alleged with specificity to qualify the killing as murder. The Court did not sustain this argument, affirming the murder conviction.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concurred.