People vs. Marcos

When the penalty for murder is composed of two indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death), and the commission of the act is attended by both an aggravating circumstance (relationship) and a mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender), the courts shall allow these circumstances to offset one another, resulting in the imposition of the lesser penalty, reclusion perpetua.

The case involves a fratricide committed in Infanta, Pangasinan, where the accused-appellant and the victim, being brothers who lived in the same house, had a history of conflict regarding financial matters. The accused attacked the victim with a bolo near an artesian well behind their residence, inflicting multiple fatal hacking wounds while the victim was in a defenseless position.

• Cesar Marcos y Mon (accused-appellant) and Virgilio Marcos (victim) were brothers who lived in the same house at Bayambang, Infanta, Pangasinan.
• On August 19, 1996, at approximately 12:00 noon, prosecution eyewitness Fernando Marcos, Jr. (nephew of both accused and victim) was resting under a mango tree near the house when he saw his uncle Virgilio arrive and proceed to the artesian well at the back of the house to put down his tools.
• As Virgilio bent down in a stooping position, the accused suddenly emerged from the kitchen door armed with a bolo and hacked Virgilio from behind on the nape of the neck, causing him to fall.
• While Virgilio was on the ground, the accused hacked him again on the right side of the head. Fernando rushed to intervene, but the accused warned him to leave or get involved.
• The accused told the victim, "Your life is not enough to pay the money you squandered."
• Fernando ran to seek help from Barangay Kagawad Solomon del Fierro and Catalino Custodio. Upon returning to the house, they found the accused seated in the sala with a bloodied bolo on the table beside him.
• When policemen arrived, the accused voluntarily surrendered the bolo to SPO1 Oscar Lagasca without resistance and allowed himself to be taken into custody along with the victim's body.
• During transport to the police station, the accused stated, "That's good for him," and "Even if I will be jailed," and told the victim's son, "Now you see what happened to your father."
• Dr. Genaro Merino testified that the victim died of hemorrhage due to multiple hacking wounds located primarily on the right side of the head and neck, consistent with a bolo attack from behind.
• The accused claimed self-defense, alleging that the victim first tried to hack him, leading to a struggle where the victim accidentally fell on his own bolo.
• A Certification from the Philippine National Police dated February 18, 1997 confirmed that the accused "voluntarily surrendered to this station with the weapon used."

• The trial court erroneously imposed the death penalty because the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, although alleged in the Information, was not proven by the prosecution.
• Citing People v. Lucas and People v. Saliling, where the Supreme Court held that when killing is qualified only by treachery without any other aggravating circumstance, and there is no mitigating circumstance, the penalty must be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• The accused-appellant argued that absent evident premeditation, the penalty should be the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• The issue of evident premeditation is moot because the trial court did not appreciate it in the questioned decision nor consider it in determining the penalty.
• The alternative circumstance of relationship must be considered as an aggravating circumstance because the accused and victim are brothers (relatives of the same level).
• When relationship is appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in addition to the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the proper penalty is death.
• The Solicitor General contended that the presence of treachery and relationship warrants the supreme penalty of death.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of death for the crime of murder.
  • Whether treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
  • Whether the alternative circumstance of relationship should be considered aggravating in this case.
  • Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of the accused.
  • How the presence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances affects the determination of the proper penalty under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Whether the award of actual damages in the amount of P51,000.00 was supported by evidence.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. The eyewitness account established that the accused attacked the victim suddenly from behind while the latter was in a stooping, defenseless, and unsuspecting position, employing means that ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the accused from any defense the victim might have made.
  • The alternative circumstance of relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level, such as killing a brother, pursuant to Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated. The accused surrendered to a person in authority (police officer), had not been actually arrested at the time of surrender, and the surrender was spontaneous and unconditional, as evidenced by the police certification and the accused's testimony which the prosecution did not dispute.
  • Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when both mitigating (voluntary surrender) and aggravating (relationship) circumstances attend the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance. Consequently, the greater penalty of death is not warranted, and the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed.
  • The award of actual damages was reduced from P51,000.00 to P18,000.00, as only the latter amount was supported by receipts. The court can only grant actual damages for expenses supported by receipts.
  • The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 was affirmed.
  • The amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto was additionally awarded without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.

• Alternative Circumstances (Relationship) — Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, these are circumstances that must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime. In crimes against persons, relationship is aggravating when the offended party is a spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate/natural/adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. In this case, fratricide (killing of a brother) qualified as an aggravating circumstance because brothers are relatives of the same level.
• Treachery as a Qualifying Circumstance — Treachery requires (a) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution to ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, and (b) the deliberate adoption by the offender of such means. It must be proven as clearly and indubitably as the crime itself and cannot be deduced from mere presumption.
• Voluntary Surrender — A mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code requiring: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter's agent; and (c) the surrender was voluntary, spontaneous, and clearly indicated the intent to surrender unconditionally either because of acknowledgment of guilt or to save authorities the trouble of searching for and capturing him.
• Offsetting Rule under Article 63 — When the penalty prescribed by law is composed of two indivisible penalties (such as reclusion perpetua to death for murder), and both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attend the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, resulting in the application of the lesser penalty.

• "In order that the alternative circumstance of relationship may be taken into consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, the offended party must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same degree, of the offender."
• "The rule is that relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons as when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level such as killing a brother."
• "For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites must be present: (a) that the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter's agent; and (c) that the surrender was voluntary. The circumstances of the surrender must show that it was made spontaneously and in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense which will necessarily be incurred in searching for and capturing him."
• "When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation."
• "Where the accused testified that he voluntarily surrendered to the police and the prosecution did not dispute such claim, then the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his favor."

• People v. Lucas (240 SCRA 68) — Cited by the accused-appellant to support the argument that where the killing is qualified by treachery but not attended by evident premeditation or any other aggravating circumstance, and neither was there any mitigating circumstance, the penalty must be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• People v. Saliling (249 SCRA 185) — Cited by the accused-appellant for the same proposition regarding the proper penalty when only treachery qualifies the killing without other aggravating circumstances.
• People v. Caballes (274 SCRA 83) — Cited by the Court as authority for the definition and application of relationship as an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People v. Sambulan (289 SCRA 500) — Cited for the requisites necessary for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• People v. Malabago (265 SCRA 198) — Cited for the rule that where the accused testifies to voluntary surrender and the prosecution does not dispute this claim, the mitigating circumstance should be appreciated.
• People v. Riglos (G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000) — Cited regarding the requirement that actual damages must be supported by receipts to be recoverable.
• People v. Ragundiaz (G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000) — Cited in support of the award of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.

• Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of murder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
• Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code — Provides the rules for the application of indivisible penalties (composed of two indivisible penalties), specifically regarding the offsetting of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the determination of whether to impose the greater or lesser penalty.
• Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code — Governs alternative circumstances, specifically relationship, which may be considered as aggravating or mitigating depending on the nature of the crime and the degree of relationship between offender and victim.
• Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code — Provides for voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.
• Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code — Implicitly cited regarding treachery as a qualifying aggravating circumstance that raises homicide to murder.