People vs. Padama, Jr.

Murder is qualified by treachery or taking advantage of superior strength when two armed assailants continuously and simultaneously stab an unarmed, unsuspecting victim, even after he has fallen; but evident premeditation cannot be appreciated absent proof of the time the plan was conceived, an outward act showing the accused clung to that determination, and sufficient lapse of time to reflect. Absent evident premeditation, the death penalty cannot be imposed for murder; the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Gerry Gatchalian operated a grocery store at the Cabanatuan City public supermarket, where Julie Ann Seroriales and Dominic Menao worked; Dominador Padama, Jr. and Joseph Pollante were helpers in a store across the Gatchalian stores and were known to those witnesses. The killing was charged as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which carries reclusion perpetua to death when attended by treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, or similar circumstances.

On June 12, 1997, at about 7:30 in the morning, Gerry Gatchalian left his store at the public supermarket in Cabanatuan City to take breakfast at a nearby canteen. He was chased by two men, each armed with a knife, and stabbed simultaneously several times. He eventually died of severe blood loss. The autopsy report, interpreted by Dr. Jun Concepcion of the City Health Office of Cabanatuan, showed at least 13 lacerated wounds, including a fatal wound on the chest, and listed the cause of death as fatal stab wound involving the chest with subsequent hypovolemic shock.

Julie Ann Seroriales, a saleslady in the grocery store of Gerry and Andrelina Gatchalian, was in front of the store putting goods on display when she saw the two accused, each wielding a knife, chasing her employer. When they caught up with Gerry, Joseph Pollante stabbed him first; Gerry ran away, fell on the pavement, and the two accused pounced on him and simultaneously stabbed him many times. The stabbing happened about 10 to 15 paces from where she was seated and stopped when a gunshot rang out; the two accused then ran away in one direction, while the victim still managed to run towards the store of his sister. She executed an affidavit on June 23, 1997 and identified Padama in court.

Fernando Mariano, a restaurant operator inside the supermarket, was buying fruits about two to three meters away when he saw two men with bladed weapons chasing Gerry. Gerry fell sidewise on the pavement; Padama caught up with him, sat on top of him, and stabbed him, while Pollante took hold of both feet and stabbed him twice. Mariano estimated that the two accused stabbed the victim 14 to 17 times, using a kitchen knife about four inches long and a colonial about six inches long; the one used by Pollante was recovered while the other was carried by Padama. The victim was lying flat on the ground, trying to parry the stabs, and the attack stopped only when Mariano fired a warning shot, after which the accused fled together.

Dominic Menao, a helper at the Gatchalian store, was about eight paces away when he heard a commotion and saw his manager Gerry being stabbed by the two accused. He saw Pollante stab the victim in the abdomen and Padama stab him in the chest, although he could not ascertain the exact number of stabs. The stabbing stopped when a gunshot rang out, and the two accused fled together. The accused were known to Seroriales and Menao as helpers in the store across the Gatchalian stores, and they were identified in court; Padama could not offer any reason why the three eyewitnesses would testify against him.

Padama was arrested in Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, and the owner of the house, Nestor Ramos, surrendered a kitchen knife. Padama denied the charge and testified that when he heard that Gerry Gatchalian was stabbed by his friend Pollante, he went to the place of the incident to prevent Pollante from further stabbing the victim, and he ran away out of fear when he heard the warning shots. The trial court found the prosecution eyewitness testimonies convincing and straightforward.

• Evident Premeditation: The Solicitor General, for the People, posited that the evidence showed appellant learned from Pollante and others of a quarrel in which the victim threatened Pollante that he would be shot and his life was worth P10,000.00; appellant confided that the victim had made a similar threat to him; and Pollante had made a resolution to kill the victim, which appellant tried to dissuade.

• Denial and Presumption of Innocence: Accused-appellant claimed that the trial court’s rejection of his defense of denial “sounds judgmental contrary to the accused’s constitutional presumption of innocence.”
• Evident Premeditation: Accused-appellant assailed the trial court’s finding of evident premeditation as unsupported by direct evidence, with nothing in the records to show that the killing was planned in advance.
• Death Penalty: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

• Denial and Presumption of Innocence: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting accused-appellant’s defense of denial despite the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Treachery or Superior Strength: Whether the killing of Gerry Gatchalian was attended by treachery or taking advantage of superior strength.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether the trial court erred in appreciating evident premeditation despite the absence of proof of planning and preparation.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed on accused-appellant.

• Denial and Presumption of Innocence: No. The defense of denial was overwhelmed by the convincing, straightforward, and probable testimonies of three eyewitnesses who identified Padama, and his flight indicated a guilty mind.
• Treachery or Superior Strength: Yes. The two armed accused continuously attacked and stabbed the unarmed and unsuspecting victim, taking turns even after he had fallen, which qualified the killing as murder.
• Evident Premeditation: No. The records had no evidence of planning and preparation, no proof of when the plan to kill was conceived, and no outward acts showing a clung determination with sufficient time to reflect; mere resentment and lapse of time were insufficient.
• Penalty: No. Absent evident premeditation, the death penalty could not be imposed; the penalty for murder was reduced to reclusion perpetua, with the civil indemnity and burial expenses affirmed.

• Denial and Presumption of Innocence: The SC held that the trial court did not err in rejecting denial because the prosecution eyewitnesses—Seroriales, Mariano, and Menao—gave convincing, straightforward, and probable testimonies that pointed to Padama as one of the perpetrators. The witnesses knew Padama as a helper in the store across the Gatchalian stores and identified him in court; Padama could not give any reason for them to testify falsely. The SC also held that flight is an indication of guilt or a guilty mind and that Padama’s flight hardly spoke well of his claim that he intended to stop Pollante. Thus denial cannot prevail over positive identification.
• Treachery or Superior Strength: The SC affirmed the conclusion that the killing was attended with treachery or taking advantage of superior strength because the two accused, each armed with bladed weapons, continuously attacked and rained knife thrusts on the unarmed and unsuspecting victim. The evidence showed that they took turns stabbing the victim while he was already lying on the pavement, and the victim was trying to parry the stabs. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is committed when the killing is attended by treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means or persons to ensure or afford impunity, and the crime is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The SC cited People vs. Tabasco, People vs. Gose, and People vs. Alitao.
• Evident Premeditation: The SC disagreed with the trial court’s finding of evident premeditation. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where there is no evidence of record of planning and preparation made by the accused to commit the crime; it must be evident, not merely suspected, and must indicate deliberate planning. The requisites are: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. There was nothing in the records to show that Padama and Pollante planned in advance the killing of Gerry Gatchalian, and no evidence of how and when the killing was planned. The Solicitor General’s recital of the quarrel and threats, and the victim’s wife’s testimony on animosity, did not prove evident premeditation; proof of alleged resentment is not conclusive proof, and an expression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime; there must be a demonstration of outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest. The SC also held that a finding of evident premeditation cannot be based on mere lapse of time and must be clearly shown just as the crime itself. Cited People vs. Magsombol, People vs. Narit, People vs. Belza, People vs. Torejas, and People vs. Piamonte.
• Penalty: Because evident premeditation was not appreciated, the death penalty could not be justified. Under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty prescribed has two indivisible penalties and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty is imposed. The penalty for murder under Article 248 is reclusion perpetua to death; absent evident premeditation, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua. The SC affirmed the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and burial expenses of P210,000.00, as these were supported by documentary and testimonial evidence.

• Denial as a defense — Denial is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification by credible eyewitnesses. In this case, Padama’s denial was overwhelmed by the convincing, straightforward, and probable testimonies of three eyewitnesses who knew him and identified him in court; his flight was also an indication of guilt.
• Treachery or taking advantage of superior strength — Murder is qualified when the killing is attended by treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means or persons to ensure or afford impunity. The SC applied this where two armed accused continuously attacked and rained knife thrusts on an unarmed and unsuspecting victim, taking turns stabbing him after he had fallen.
• Evident premeditation — Evident premeditation requires proof of (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. It must be evident, not merely suspected; cannot be based on mere lapse of time or proof of resentment; there must be direct proof of when the plan was conceived and outward acts of criminal intent that are notorious and manifest. The SC found these absent.
• Penalty for murder absent aggravating circumstance — Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 248. Under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, absent an aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed. The SC applied this after rejecting evident premeditation.

• “Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where there is no evidence of record of planning and preparation made by the accused to commit the crime.” — The SC used this rule to reject the trial court’s finding of evident premeditation.
• “The requisites of evident premeditation are: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.” — This is the SC’s canonical statement of the requisites of evident premeditation.
• “A finding of evident premeditation cannot be based on mere lapse of time, and must be clearly shown just as the crime itself.” — The SC emphasized the strict proof required for evident premeditation.
• “The evidence shows that the two accused took turns in stabbing the victim while the latter had already fallen down on the pavement.” — This factual finding supported the qualification of the killing by treachery or superior strength.

• People vs. Tabasco, 270 SCRA 32; People vs. Gose, 247 SCRA 780; People vs. Alitao, 194 SCRA 120 — Cited in support of the finding that the killing was attended by treachery or taking advantage of superior strength.
• People vs. Magsombol, 252 SCRA 187 — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where there is no evidence of planning and preparation; also cited for the rule that proof of alleged resentment is not conclusive proof of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Narit, 197 SCRA 334 — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation must be evident, not merely suspected, and must indicate deliberate planning.
• People vs. Belza, 258 SCRA 583 — Cited for the requisites of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Torejas, 43 SCRA 158 — Cited with Magsombol for the rule that proof of alleged resentment does not constitute conclusive proof of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Piamonte, prom. February 25, 1999 — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where there is no direct proof showing when the plan to kill was conceived, that the accused clung to it, and that sufficient time elapsed to allow reflection.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the killing is attended by treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means or persons to ensure or afford impunity. The SC applied it to qualify the killing as murder.
• Article 63, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the penalty prescribed has two indivisible penalties and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty is imposed. The SC applied it to reduce the death penalty to reclusion perpetua after rejecting evident premeditation.