People vs. Glino

Conspiracy renders all conspirators equally liable for the crime committed regardless of who inflicted the fatal blow, and treachery qualifies a killing when a sudden and unexpected attack renders the victim defenseless, but intent to kill cannot be presumed from the mere infliction of injuries and must be proven by the nature, location, and means used, such that a minor wound on a non-vital part sustained while shielding the primary victim negates attempted murder and warrants conviction for less serious physical injuries only.

Spouses Domingo and Virginia Boji boarded a passenger jeepney in Las Piñas City on November 15, 1998. Accused-appellant Conrado Glino, reeking of liquor, sat beside Virginia and leaned on her shoulder, prompting a verbal altercation when Domingo intervened. As the jeepney stopped, Glino and his companion Marvin Baloes suddenly stabbed Domingo, killing him. Virginia, who attempted to shield Domingo, sustained an incised wound on her finger.

• The Jeepney Incident: Domingo and Virginia Boji hailed a jeepney bound for Alabang-Zapote Road on November 15, 1998. After a female passenger alighted, Glino took the seat beside Virginia. Smelling of liquor, Glino leaned his head on Virginia's shoulder. When Virginia asked him to move, Glino retorted angrily. Domingo intervened, identifying himself as Virginia's husband, to which Baloes, Glino's companion, reacted aggressively. The verbal exchange subsided, and the other passengers believed the tension had ceased.
• The Attack: As the jeepney approached Casimiro Village, Baloes asked the driver to stop so they could alight. Instead of leaving, Baloes unexpectedly drew an improvised knife and stabbed Domingo in the chest. Glino unfolded a 29-inch Batangas knife and joined Baloes in stabbing Domingo. Domingo sustained nine stab wounds and died shortly after. Virginia embraced Domingo to shield him and sustained an incised wound on her right fifth digit.
• Apprehension: Passengers scrambled to exit the jeepney. Glino and Baloes attempted to flee towards Camella Center. Baloes fell due to intoxication, while Glino ran approximately 45 meters before being apprehended by traffic enforcers Alvin Cristobal and Ruben Ramirez.
• Defense Version: Glino testified that he was an innocent bystander who did not know Baloes prior to the incident. He claimed that Baloes alone stabbed Domingo after an argument with Virginia, and that he merely alighted from the vehicle out of fear and was arrested while waiting for another ride.

• Identity of Assailant: Glino argued that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him because Virginia admitted she did not see him stab her husband, pointing instead to Baloes as the perpetrator.
• Absence of Treachery: In the alternative, Glino contended that he should only be liable for homicide and attempted homicide, claiming treachery did not attend the killing.

• Positive Identification: The prosecution maintained that eyewitnesses positively identified Glino as one of the assailants, contradicting his claim of being a mere bystander.
• Conspiracy and Treachery: The prosecution argued that Glino's concerted actions with Baloes established conspiracy, making him equally liable for the murder, and that the sudden attack constituted treachery.

• Positive Identification: Whether the identity of Glino as an assailant was firmly established despite Virginia's admission that she saw Baloes stab her husband.
• Conspiracy: Whether Glino can be held liable for murder even if he did not personally inflict the fatal stab wound.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing to qualify the crime as murder.
• Intent to Kill: Whether the prosecution proved intent to kill Virginia to sustain a conviction for attempted murder.

• Positive Identification: Glino's identity as an assailant was firmly established. Eyewitness Enrique Villaruel and victim Virginia positively and categorically named Glino as one of the assailants. The trial court's factual findings on witness credibility, affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded great weight and respect. Glino's bare denial crumbles in the face of positive identification by witnesses with no ill motive to testify falsely.
• Conspiracy: Glino is liable for murder under the principle of conspiracy. Proof of a prior explicit agreement is not necessary; conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused indicating a common understanding. Glino blocked Virginia's path while Baloes stabbed Domingo, and Glino subsequently joined the stabbing. The act of one conspirator is the act of all; it is not necessary that all participants deliver the fatal blow.
• Treachery: Treachery was present. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of any real chance to defend himself. Although Domingo had a verbal exchange with the assailants, the attack was sudden and unexpected because the victims thought the tension had ceased and the assailants were alighting. Domingo was overpowered and rendered defenseless.
• Intent to Kill: Intent to kill Virginia was not proven. An essential element of attempted murder is intent to kill, which must be proven by the means used, the nature and location of the wounds, and the conduct of the malefactors. The nature and location of Virginia's wound—a 2.5 cm incised wound on her right fifth digit, sustained while shielding Domingo—militate against a finding of intent to kill. If the assailants intended to kill her, they could have stabbed a vital part. Consequently, Glino is guilty only of less serious physical injuries, an offense necessarily included in the charge of attempted murder.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence but may be inferred from the conduct of the accused indicating a common understanding. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all; it matters not who among the accused actually killed the victim, and it is not necessary that all participants deliver the fatal blow.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the assailant on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. Treachery may be appreciated even if the victim was forewarned of danger, provided the attack was executed in a manner that rendered the victim defenseless and unable to retaliate.
• Intent to Kill — Intent to kill is an essential element of murder and homicide in their consummated, frustrated, or attempted stages. It is a specific intent that must be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, such as the means used, the nature, location, and number of wounds, the conduct of the malefactors, the circumstances of the crime, and the motives of the accused. It is not presumed from the mere infliction of injuries.
• Variance between Offense Charged and Proved — When the offense charged includes or is necessarily included in the offense proved, the accused may be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged. Thus, an accused may be convicted of physical injuries in a prosecution for murder or attempted murder, as the infliction of physical injuries constitutes part of the essential ingredients of the latter offenses.

• "In conspiracy, it matters not who among the accused actually killed the victim. The act of one is the act of all; hence, it is not necessary that all the participants deliver the fatal blow."
• "The essence of this qualifying circumstance is the sudden and unexpected attack by the assailant on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself."
• "If the assailants also intended to kill her, they could have easily stabbed her in any vital part of her body. They did not. The nature and location of her wound militates against the finding of their intent to kill."

• People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 — Followed as procedural basis for intermediate review of RTC decisions imposing reclusion perpetua to the Court of Appeals.
• People v. Quijada, G.R. Nos. 115008-09 — Followed regarding the great weight and respect accorded to the trial court's factual findings on the credibility of witnesses.
• People v. Ave, G.R. Nos. 137274-75 — Followed reiterating that appellate courts generally do not overturn trial court findings on witness credibility.
• People v. Delim, 444 Phil. 430 — Followed for the rudiments of proving intent to kill in crimes against persons.
• Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135619 — Followed for the rule that an accused may be convicted of physical injuries in a prosecution for murder or homicide.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder with reclusion perpetua to death when committed with attendant circumstances such as treachery. Applied to convict Glino of murder, imposing reclusion perpetua due to the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Article 265, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes less serious physical injuries with arresto mayor when the injury incapacitates the offended party for labor or requires medical attendance for ten days or more. Applied to convict Glino of less serious physical injuries instead of attempted murder.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for applying penalties when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances are present. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua for murder.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for applying penalties when neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances are present. Applied to impose the medium period of arresto mayor for less serious physical injuries.
• Article 2230, New Civil Code — Allows the award of exemplary damages when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic. Applied to justify the award of exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery.
• Rule 120, Section 4, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governs variance between the offense charged and the offense proved, allowing conviction of the lesser offense necessarily included in the charge. Applied to convict Glino of less serious physical injuries under an information for attempted murder.
• Rule 124, Section 13(c), 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Allows appeal to the Supreme Court from Court of Appeals judgments imposing reclusion perpetua or lesser penalties. Applied as the procedural basis for the present appeal.

Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Chico-Nazario