People vs. Hermo

The trial court’s assessment of a lone eyewitness’s credibility is entitled to great deference absent strong and cogent reasons to ignore it, and abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority or there is a notorious inequality of forces, but also when the offender uses a weapon out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.

Nilo Hermo was one of three persons charged with murder for the death of Tito Hermosura; the two others remained at large, so only Nilo was arraigned and tried. The legal backdrop includes Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act 7659, which punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death, and Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code on imposing the lesser penalty when the prescribed penalties are indivisible and no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attend the deed.

Tito Hermosura was the younger brother of Jaime Hermosura, and on 09 June 1996 the family was gathered at Jaime’s home in Barangay Soledad, Municipality of Villareal, Samar for the third death anniversary of their father. Around eleven o’clock in the evening, Jaime asked Tito to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. When Tito failed to return after sometime, Jaime went out to look for him. While walking along the road, Jaime saw somebody being chased by two men; the man stumbled upon a pile of gravel and fell to the ground. By the fluorescent light of a lamp post fifteen meters away, Jaime recognized the fallen person as Tito and one of the pursuers as Nilo Hermo. Jaime recounted that just as Tito stumbled, Nilo stabbed him at the back with a six-inch-long knife locally known as a “kutsilyo,” and Nilo’s companions then took turns hitting Tito; the fatal knife was finally embedded in the victim’s back by his assailants. Jaime rushed to the house of Acting Chief of Police SPO4 Pablo Teves to ask for help.

After Jaime informed SPO4 Teves of the killing, the officer formed a team of policemen that brought the victim’s body back to the Hermosura residence. On the basis of the information Jaime furnished on the identity of the assailants, the team went after the culprits and, for two days, scoured the areas around Barangays Salcedo, Pampang, Canmucat, Tomabe, Connant, and Nagkaduha in Villareal. In Barangay Nagkaduha, at least eight kilometers away from the crime scene, at around eleven o’clock in the evening of 11 June 1996, the police found and apprehended Nilo hiding behind the door of the house of Felimon Romano in the company of Nilo’s father. The prosecution presented four witnesses: Jaime Hermosura, SPO4 Pablo Teves, Manuel Galvez, and Froilan Ragay; the last two testified that they saw Nilo in the vicinity of the crime at or about the time of its commission.

Defense witnesses Terencio Quinawayan and Emeterio Reposo, as well as Nilo himself, testified for the defense. Terencio stated that on 09 June 1996 he sought Nilo’s help to bring Natividad Esponga’s sick daughter, Rosalie, to the hospital; at that time Nilo was drinking tuba in the house of Fernando Espadero, and Nilo readily agreed and went with him to Natividad’s house in Barangay Canmucat. Emeterio corroborated Terencio’s testimony that Nilo was in Natividad’s house watching over the ailing daughter. Nilo claimed that on 09 June 1996 he was in Natividad’s house from seven o’clock in the evening until five o’clock in the morning of 10 June 1996, and that Rosalie was very ill while he and other neighbors stayed in Natividad’s house playing cards while waiting for transportation to bring Rosalie to the hospital.

The trial court was not impressed by the defense witnesses’ asseverations and gave weight to the prosecution witnesses. It appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, discarding treachery and evident premeditation for lack of satisfactory proof. In appreciating abuse of superior strength, it took into account the autopsy report showing the participation of not less than two assailants and the fact that the victim was clubfooted and short-fingered.

• Credibility of the Lone Eyewitness: Nilo Hermo, the accused-appellant, contended that the trial court gravely erred in finding that the prosecution established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, branding Jaime Hermosura’s lone eyewitness account as incredible because Jaime did not immediately come to his younger brother’s succor and instead sought the Chief of Police some distance away rather than help from his other brothers.

• Credibility of the Lone Eyewitness: Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding Nilo Hermo guilty beyond reasonable doubt by giving weight to the lone eyewitness account of Jaime Hermosura despite the appellant’s claim that the account was incredible.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Whether abuse of superior strength was present to qualify the killing to murder.
• Penalty: Whether the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua and properly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Damages: Whether the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs was proper and whether moral and exemplary damages should be awarded.

• Credibility of the Lone Eyewitness: No. The trial court’s credibility finding was entitled to great deference; Jaime Hermosura’s reaction did not make his lone eyewitness account incredible, and no strong and cogent reason existed to disregard the trial court’s assessment.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Yes. Abuse of superior strength was present because not less than two assailants participated and the victim was clubfooted and short-fingered, creating inequality of forces; the SC also applied the rule that a weapon out of proportion to the defense available may establish the circumstance.
• Penalty: Yes, but on the correct legal basis. Article 248 punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death, both indivisible, and Article 63(2) requires the lesser penalty absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances; the Indeterminate Sentence Law was not the basis.
• Damages: Partly yes. The P50,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto was proper; the SC additionally awarded P30,000.00 moral damages and P20,000.00 exemplary damages, but no actual damages for lack of proof.

• Credibility of the Lone Eyewitness: The SC said the case boils down to a question of credibility, which peculiarly falls within the trial court’s province because it can watch and observe the demeanor and behavior of witnesses. Great deference to the trial court’s findings is inevitable unless strong and cogent reasons appear to ignore its assessment. Jaime might have acted less than prudently, but people behave divergently in strange, startling, or frightful situations, and there is no known standard form of human behavioral response. It was not strange that Jaime ran to the Chief of Police, the logical person in authority, instead of asking help from his brothers, and it would not be unnatural for him to avoid putting his other siblings at similar risk. The SC cited People vs. Morin, People vs. Rivera, and People vs. Goce for this rule and upheld the trial court’s reliance on Jaime’s lone eyewitness account.

• Abuse of Superior Strength: The trial court appreciated abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing to murder and discarded treachery and evident premeditation for lack of satisfactory proof; the SC found no adequate evidence for either treachery or evident premeditation. In appreciating abuse of superior strength, the trial court considered the autopsy report showing the participation of not less than two assailants and the fact that the victim was clubfooted and short-fingered. The SC ruled correctly that the assailants abused their combined superior strength and took advantage of the victim’s physical weakness, there being inequality of forces between the unarmed and defenseless victim and his armed aggressors. The SC also stated that abuse of superior strength is present not only with numerical superiority or notorious inequality of forces but also when the offender uses a weapon out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party, citing People vs. Padilla and People vs. Bongadillo.

• Penalty: Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act 7659, punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death. The prescribed penalty is both indivisible, and there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty must perforce be applied under paragraph (2), Article 63, of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua but erroneously referred to the Indeterminate Sentence Law as the basis for the lesser penalty.

• Damages: The trial court awarded P50,000.00 to the heirs without explaining any reason. In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, an award of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity ex delicto is due for Tito’s death under Article 2206 of the Civil Code. The heirs are also entitled to P30,000.00 moral damages under paragraph (3) of Article 2206, in relation to Article 2217 and paragraph (1) of Article 2219, of the Civil Code, plus P20,000.00 exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code because of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. No actual damages can be recovered because no proof was adduced.

• Credibility of Witnesses — Credibility is a matter peculiarly within the trial court’s province because it can watch and observe demeanor and behavior; great deference is given unless strong and cogent reasons appear. Applied: the SC upheld Jaime Hermosura’s lone eyewitness account despite the appellant’s claim that his reaction was incredible.
• Abuse of Superior Strength — Present not only when offenders enjoy numerical superiority or notorious inequality of forces, but also when the offender uses a weapon out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. Applied: the SC upheld the qualification because not less than two assailants participated and the victim was clubfooted and short-fingered, leaving him unarmed and defenseless against armed aggressors.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law and Indivisible Penalties — When the prescribed penalty is indivisible and there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty is imposed under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, not the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Applied: murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, both indivisible, so reclusion perpetua was imposed.
• Civil Indemnity Ex Delicto — An award of P50,000.00 is due for death in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence under Article 2206 of the Civil Code. Applied: the SC awarded it to Tito Hermosura’s heirs.
• Moral and Exemplary Damages; Actual Damages — Moral damages of P30,000.00 are due under Article 2206(3) in relation to Articles 2217 and 2219(1); exemplary damages of P20,000.00 are due under Article 2230 because of abuse of superior strength; actual damages require proof. Applied: the SC awarded moral and exemplary damages but no actual damages for lack of proof.

• “Jaime Hermosura might have acted less than prudently in reacting to the incident that has befallen his brother. But, indeed, different people, as the Court has so often observed, behave divergently to given types of situation, and there is no known standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.” — The SC used this to reject the appellant’s attack on Jaime’s credibility based on his reaction to the killing.
• “Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.” — This is the SC’s canonical formulation of abuse of superior strength.
• “The prescribed penalty, being both indivisible, and there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty must perforce be applied pursuant to paragraph (2), Article 63, of the Revised Penal Code.” — The SC used this to justify reclusion perpetua and to correct the trial court’s reference to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• “In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, an award of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, ex delicto, is due for the death of Tito Hermosura in keeping with Article 2206 of the Civil Code.” — The SC used this to uphold and explain the civil indemnity awarded to the victim’s heirs.

• People vs. Morin, 241 SCRA 709 — Followed for the rule that credibility is peculiarly within the trial court’s province.
• People vs. Rivera, 242 SCRA 26 — Followed for the rule that great deference is given to the trial court’s findings absent strong and cogent reasons.
• People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780 — Followed for the same deference to the trial court’s assessment.
• People vs. Padilla, 233 SCRA 46 — Followed for the formulation of abuse of superior strength.
• People vs. Bongadillo, 234 SCRA 233 — Followed for the same abuse of superior strength formulation.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act 7659 — Punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death; applied to Nilo’s conviction.
• Article 63, paragraph (2), Revised Penal Code — Requires the lesser penalty when the prescribed penalties are indivisible and no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attend the deed; applied to impose reclusion perpetua.
• Article 2206, Civil Code — Provides civil indemnity for death; applied to award P50,000.00.
• Article 2206, paragraph (3), in relation to Article 2217 and Article 2219, paragraph (1), Civil Code — Basis for moral damages; applied to award P30,000.00.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Basis for exemplary damages when an aggravating circumstance attends the commission of the offense; applied to award P20,000.00 due to abuse of superior strength.