People vs. Lagtu

An antemortem statement made under consciousness of impending death is admissible as a dying declaration, and where the records do not show facts establishing treachery, the killing is homicide, not murder; nighttime is not aggravating absent proof it was purposely sought.

Roberto Lagtu y Villaluna, also known as "Tikboy Lagtu," was charged in Criminal Case No. 721 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas with murder for the death of Rizal Benedicto. The information alleged that on or about October 20, 1975, in Barrio Wawa, Municipality of Nasugbu, Province of Batangas, Lagtu, armed with a pointed-bladed instrument and together with one John Doe whose identity and whereabouts were unknown, conspiring and confederating, with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of superior strength, suddenly and without warning attacked, assaulted, stabbed, and hit Benedicto, inflicting stab wounds in different vital parts of his body that caused severe hemorrhage and profuse bleeding and directly caused his death; it also alleged nighttime deliberately sought.

At about 2:15 o'clock in the morning of October 20, 1975, a wounded person, wet and soaked in his own blood, was found in the yard of the Bayani family at Washington Street, Nasugbu, Batangas. Gaudencio Calinawan, Felipe and Rodolfo Bayani, and Jaime Caparas found and recognized him as Rizal Benedicto. According to Calinawan and Caparas, Benedicto had several stab wounds. Caparas said that in answer to his question, Benedicto told him that the group of "Tikboy Lagtu" stabbed him and threw him from a bridge in Bo. Wawa, Nasugbu.

Calinawan and company brought Benedicto to Apacible Memorial Hospital in Nasugbu. At around 2:45 o'clock that same morning, Patrolmen Anselmo Madrid and Ramos of the Nasugbu Police Force went to the hospital at Calinawan's request. Seeing Benedicto on a stretcher, Patrolman Madrid asked him questions, and the questions and answers were embodied in Exhibit B, which Benedicto thumb-marked and Geronimo Torres witnessed. In Exhibit B, Benedicto said he was clear-minded; identified himself as Rizal Benedicto y Dimaisip of Bo. Talagan, Nasugbu, Batangas; said he had been stabbed; named "Tikboy Lagtu" and companions whose names he did not know as his assailants; placed the incident at the bridge of Bo. Wawa, Nasugbu, Batangas; said he did not know what was used but felt sharp-pointed objects hit his body; said he did not know why he was stabbed and was simply blocked and stabbed; dated the incident as October 20, 1975; and described his wounds as painful and bad.

At around 3:30 o'clock that same morning, Benedicto was transferred to St. Francis Hospital for surgery. Dr. Luis Montemar operated on him and later testified that Benedicto sustained eight stab wounds inflicted with a sharp-pointed instrument, the wound reaching the liver being the most dangerous. For more than 11 hours after the operation, Benedicto fought for his life and lost; he expired at around 3:15 o'clock in the afternoon of October 20, 1975. The death certificate, Exhibit E, showed that he died of severe hemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab wounds. These facts were testified to by Gaudencio Calinawan, Jaime Caparas, Dr. Luis Montemar, and Patrolman Anselmo Madrid.

The prosecution bolstered its case against Roberto Lagtu with Patrolman Madrid's testimony that Lagtu was indeed "Tikboy Lagtu." Madrid testified that he had known "Tikboy Lagtu" personally for a long time and that "Tikboy Lagtu" and Roberto Lagtu were one and the same person; he pointed to Roberto Lagtu in court. Roberto Lagtu, who was 31 years old when he testified in December 1977, claimed he was not "Tikboy Lagtu"; his nickname was "Boy," by which he had been known in Bo. Wawa since childhood, and "Tikboy Lagtu" was his nephew Dominador Lagtu. Roberto offered an alibi that he was sleeping in his house at Bo. Wawa from 8:00 o'clock in the evening of October 19, 1975 until 6:00 o'clock the next morning of October 20, 1975. Dominador Lagtu testified that he was the real "Tikboy Lagtu" and the nephew of the accused whose nickname was "Boy"; Rosario Lagtu, the accused's wife, and Romeo Lising, his close friend, corroborated Roberto and Dominador. Roberto also admitted that he knew Patrolman Madrid, though he said he knew Madrid as "Max."

On November 3, 1975, Roberto Lagtu signed a manifestation addressed to the Municipal Court of Nasugbu requesting a preliminary investigation proper, in which he referred to himself as Roberto Lagtu alias "Tikboy Lagtu." The trial court gave credence to the prosecution evidence and concluded that Roberto Lagtu was the "Tikboy Lagtu" who stabbed and killed Rizal Benedicto. On appeal, the errors attributed to the trial court boiled down to whether the identity of Benedicto's assailant was convincingly and conclusively established.

• Identity of the Assailant: Appellant Roberto Lagtu argued that the trial court erred because the identity of Rizal Benedicto's assailant was not convincingly and conclusively established.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Lagtu maintained that he was not "Tikboy Lagtu"; his nickname was "Boy," and "Tikboy Lagtu" was his nephew Dominador Lagtu. He also claimed alibi, saying he was sleeping in his house at Bo. Wawa from 8:00 o'clock in the evening of October 19, 1975 until 6:00 o'clock the next morning of October 20, 1975.

• Identity of the Assailant: Whether the identity of Roberto Lagtu as the person who stabbed Rizal Benedicto was convincingly and conclusively established.
• Dying Declaration: Whether the victim's antemortem statement, Exhibit B, and his statement to Jaime Caparas identifying "Tikboy Lagtu" are admissible as dying declarations.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killing to murder.
• Nighttime: Whether nighttime was an aggravating circumstance.
• Penalty: Whether the accused should be convicted of murder or homicide and what penalty should be imposed.

• Identity of the Assailant: Yes. The dying declarations and Patrolman Madrid's testimony established that "Tikboy Lagtu" was Roberto Lagtu, and the alibi failed against positive identification.
• Dying Declaration: Yes. Exhibit B and the statement to Jaime Caparas were made under consciousness of impending death and referred to the cause and surrounding circumstances of Benedicto's death, so they were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule.
• Treachery: No. The records do not show facts establishing treachery, and it cannot be presumed from the eight stab wounds; the crime is homicide only.
• Nighttime: No. Although alleged, there was no evidence that nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the crime.
• Penalty: Homicide only. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period, imposed as an indeterminate sentence of seven years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Identity of the Assailant: The SC held that identity was established. Patrolman Anselmo Madrid categorically declared that he had known "Tikboy Lagtu" personally and for a long time and that "Tikboy Lagtu" and Roberto Lagtu were one and the same person. Between Madrid's testimony and that of Roberto and his witnesses, the SC gave credence to Madrid because he was a disinterested witness and there was no showing of ill motive, while the defense witnesses were relatives and a close friend naturally tainted with bias. The SC added that in small rural communities everybody knows almost everybody, especially a policeman who regularly performs his beat, and Roberto himself worked at Inter-Resort in Bo. Wawa and admitted knowing Patrolman Madrid, though he said he knew him as "Max." The SC also noted Roberto's manifestation dated November 3, 1975 addressed to the Municipal Court of Nasugbu requesting preliminary investigation proper, in which he admitted he was "Tikboy Lagtu" by referring to himself as Roberto Lagtu alias "Tikboy Lagtu." Since "Tikboy Lagtu" and Roberto Lagtu were one and the same person, the alibi had to fall because he had been positively identified as Benedicto's assailant.
• Dying Declaration: The SC held Exhibit B was properly admitted as a dying declaration. It referred to the cause and surrounding circumstances of Benedicto's death and was made under consciousness of impending death, considering that Benedicto had been found bathing in his own blood due to multiple stab wounds and must have naturally sensed the seriousness of his condition, which eventually caused his death. For the same reason, Benedicto's revelation to Jaime Caparas that "sina Tikboy Lagtu" stabbed him also had the nature of a dying declaration. Both declarations were therefore admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.
• Treachery: The SC held that the records did not show facts upon which a finding of treachery could be sustained. Treachery cannot be presumed merely because the victim sustained eight stab wounds. Roberto Lagtu should therefore be held guilty of homicide only.
• Nighttime: Although nighttime was alleged in the information, the SC found no evidence that nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime. It was therefore not an aggravating circumstance.
• Penalty: There being no attendant aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in the commission of homicide, the appropriate penalty was reclusion temporal in its medium period. The SC modified the judgment by finding Lagtu guilty of homicide only and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of seven years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Dying Declaration — A statement made by a declarant under consciousness of impending death, referring to the cause and surrounding circumstances of that death, is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. In this case, Exhibit B and Benedicto's statement to Jaime Caparas were admitted because Benedicto had multiple stab wounds, was soaked in his own blood, and later died, showing he sensed the seriousness of his condition.
• Treachery — Treachery must be established by facts showing the manner of attack; it cannot be presumed from the number of wounds alone. The SC found no facts to sustain treachery despite eight stab wounds, so the crime was homicide, not murder.
• Nighttime as an Aggravating Circumstance — Nighttime aggravates only when it was purposely sought to facilitate the crime. The SC rejected it because the information alleged it but no evidence showed it was deliberately sought.
• Alibi — Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Lagtu's claim that he was sleeping at home from 8:00 p.m. of October 19 to 6:00 a.m. of October 20, 1975 failed because he was positively identified as the assailant.
• Credibility of Witnesses — A disinterested witness's testimony is preferred over that of relatives and close friends of the accused, whose testimony is naturally tainted with bias. The SC credited Patrolman Madrid over Roberto Lagtu's wife and close friend.
• Penalty for Homicide with No Modifying Circumstances — Where homicide is committed without aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. The SC imposed an indeterminate penalty of seven years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• "Undoubtedly, the antemortem statement, Exhibit B, of the victim was properly admitted as dying declaration. It referred to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. And it was made under the consciousness of an impending death, considering that the declarant who was earlier found bathing in his own blood due to multiple stab wounds, must have naturally sensed the seriousness of his condition which eventually caused his death." — This passage states the basis for admitting Exhibit B as a dying declaration.
• "The records, however, do not show facts upon which a finding of treachery can be sustained. And it cannot be presumed merely because the victim sustained 8 stab wounds." — This passage explains why the conviction was reduced from murder to homicide.
• "Although nighttime is alleged in the information, there is no evidence that nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime." — This passage rejects nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
• "It having been shown that "Tikboy Lagtu" and Roberto Lagtu were one and the game person, the alibi of the accused has to fall because he has been positively Identified as the assailant of Rizal Benedicto." — This passage rejects Lagtu's alibi against positive identification.