People vs. Pajenado

A conspiracy to commit murder may be inferred from the concerted actions of multiple assailants who emerge together, armed, and execute a sudden, coordinated attack on an unarmed victim. The qualifying circumstance of treachery attends when the attack is sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any real opportunity to defend himself, especially when the victim is in a vulnerable state (e.g., intoxicated). The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code requires both a valid legal authority to act and that the resulting injury be the necessary consequence of the lawful performance of that duty.

The case arose from a fatal assault during a betrothal celebration in barrio Dapdap, Las Navas, Samar. The deceased, Jorge Tapong, became heavily intoxicated at the party. Upon the municipal mayor's suggestion, the barrio captain ordered two barrio policemen to escort Tapong to a relative's house. During this escort, the five appellants launched a sudden, violent attack, resulting in Tapong's death from severe head and bodily injuries.

• Nature of the Gathering: On the evening of March 26, 1966, a betrothal party was held at the house of Constancio Pajenado in barrio Dapdap. Guests included the municipal mayor, the barrio captain (Teofilo Jorda), barrio policemen, the deceased Jorge Tapong, and the five accused.
• The Escort: Due to Tapong's drunken state, Mayor Jolejole suggested he be taken home. Barrio Captain Jorda ordered barrio policemen Domingo Pajac and Benito Sacay to help escort Tapong to the house of his cousin, Pelagia Tapong Gutaba.
• The Assault: While en route, the five accused, each armed with a piece of wood, suddenly emerged from between two houses. Accused Alfonso Pajenado focused a flashlight on Tapong's eyes, and all five accused commenced beating him about the body until he fell. The street was illuminated by a Petromax lamp.
• Aftermath and Death: Barrio Captain Jorda witnessed the assault and blew his whistle to stop it, but the accused ignored him. After the accused fled, Tapong was taken to his house but died en route to seeking medical attention.
• Medical Findings: An autopsy revealed multiple abrasions and hematomas. The cause of death was "uncal herniation leading to death from an increase in intracranial pressure" due to a skull fracture, with neck swelling as a contributory factor. The injuries were consistent with blunt instruments like wood.
• Defense of Accused Toling: Appellant Aniceto Toling admitted striking Tapong but claimed he was a barrio policeman lawfully disarming Tapong, who had allegedly attacked them with a bolo (depang). He claimed the barrio captain ordered the disarmament.
• Trial Court's Rejection of Toling's Defense: The trial court found Toling's claim of being a barrio policeman unworthy of belief. His purported appointment by the municipal mayor was void, as appointing power rested with the barrio captain under R.A. No. 3590. Furthermore, Barrio Captain Jorda testified Toling was not a barrio policeman.
• Inconsistent Witness Statements: Prosecution witnesses Jorda and Pajac gave initial statements (dictated, they claimed, by the mayor to protect the accused) suggesting Tapong attacked first and they did not see the assailants. Their subsequent affidavits and court testimony identified the five accused as the attackers.

• Lack of Motive: Appellants argued the prosecution failed to establish any motive for them to harm the deceased, casting doubt on their identification as the culprits.
• Inconsistent Witness Testimony: Appellants contended that the conflicting initial statements and later testimony of key prosecution witnesses (Jorda and Pajac) destroyed their credibility and rendered the prosecution's case doubtful.
• Bias of Rebuttal Witnesses: Appellants sought to discredit the rebuttal witnesses (relatives of the deceased) as biased due to family relationships and a separate feud.
• Absence of Conspiracy: Appellants disputed the trial court's finding that they all helped one another in beating the deceased.
• Crime is Homicide, Not Murder: Appellants argued the qualifying circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of superior strength were absent.
• Mitigating Circumstance: Appellants claimed the mitigating circumstance of "lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong" should be appreciated, given the weapons used (pieces of wood) and the number of blows.

• Positive Identification Overcomes Lack of Motive: The Solicitor General, for the appellee People, maintained that motive is irrelevant when the accused have been positively identified by credible witnesses, as in this case.
• Witness Inconsistencies Explained: The prosecution witnesses satisfactorily explained their initial conflicting statements as having been dictated by the mayor, who wished to protect the accused, his political followers.
• Credibility of Relatives: The Solicitor General argued that mere relationship does not automatically discredit testimony, absent showing the witnesses testified solely due to that relationship or an improper motive.
• Conspiracy Inferred from Conduct: The concerted actions of the accused—emerging together armed, attacking simultaneously, and fleeing together—demonstrated a community of design.
• Treachery Qualified the Killing: The sudden, unexpected attack on an unarmed, intoxicated victim who had no opportunity to defend himself constituted treachery.
• No Mitigating Circumstance: The nature of the attack, characterized by treachery, and the fact the accused left only after the victim fell, negated any claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

• Conspiracy: Whether the concerted actions of the five appellants established a conspiracy to commit murder.
• Treachery: Whether the sudden and unexpected assault on the unarmed, intoxicated victim constituted the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia).
• Justifying Circumstance: Whether appellant Toling acted in the lawful performance of a duty as a barrio policeman, thus exempting him from criminal liability.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether inconsistencies in the prior statements of prosecution witnesses fatally undermined their credibility and the prosecution's case.
• Proper Penalty and Indemnity: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed and whether the awarded civil indemnity was adequate.

• Conspiracy: Conspiracy was established. The five appellants emerged together, all armed with pieces of wood, acted in concert during the assault (with one focusing a flashlight to facilitate the attack), and fled together afterward. Their conduct demonstrated a common purpose and design.
• Treachery: The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected. The victim was unarmed, intoxicated, and had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants.
• Justifying Circumstance: The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty was not proven. First, Toling failed to prove he was a lawful barrio policeman; his purported appointment was void, and the barrio captain denied his status. Second, even assuming he was an officer, his actions were not consistent with lawful duty. His flight from the scene immediately after the incident was indicative of guilt, not the conduct of an officer performing a duty.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The inconsistencies in the witnesses' prior statements were satisfactorily explained and referred to trivial details. Their consistent, positive identification of the appellants as the assailants during trial was credible. Relationship alone does not disqualify a witness.
• Proper Penalty and Indemnity: The crime was murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of band (a band of more than three armed malefactors). The penalty should thus be death. However, due to the lack of the necessary number of votes among the justices to impose the death penalty, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was increased from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indicate a joint purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. Here, the coordinated attack and flight established conspiracy.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — Under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code, treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack on an unarmed, unsuspecting victim.
• Justifying Circumstance: Fulfillment of Duty (Art. 11(5), RPC) — This circumstance requires: (1) the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and (2) the injury caused was a necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or lawful exercise of such right or office. Both requisites must concur. The claimant bears the burden of proof.
• Aggravating Circumstance: Band — Under Article 14(6) of the RPC, this circumstance is present when more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense.

• "Conspiracy, however, may be inferred from the appellants' conduct. The five accused emerged between the houses... All of them were armed with pieces of wood. The accused Alfonso Pajenado had with him a flashlight which he focused on the eyes of Jorge Tapong while they were all beating Tapong. All of them fled after Tapong fell down... It is evident that they had community of design."
• "Why did he run? To run away from the scene of a crime is indicative of guilt. Why did he not inform the barrio captain of the incident...? Such unnatural action negates and renders improbable the claim that he was acting in the fulfillment of a duty."
• "Motive is pertinent only when there is doubt as to the Identity of the culprit, something which does not obtain in the case at bar as the five accused were Positively Identified by prosecution witnesses to be the assailants of the victim."

• People v. Llamera, G.R. No. L-21604-5-6, May 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 49 — Cited for the principle that an accused who admits the killing must rely on the strength of his own evidence for a justifying circumstance, not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
• People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 — Cited for the requisites of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under Article 11(5) of the RPC.
• People v. Herila, G.R. No. L-32785, May 21, 1973, 51 SCRA 31 — Cited for the rule that motive is immaterial when there is positive identification of the accused, and for the principle that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is not applicable where the crime is qualified by treachery.
• People v. Velez, G.R. No. L-30038, July 18, 1974, 58 SCRA 21 — Cited for the doctrine that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.
• U.S. v. Juan de la Cruz et al., 12 Phil. 87 — Cited for the definition and appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of band.

• Article 11(5), Revised Penal Code — The justifying circumstance of "any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following circumstances concur: (5) That the injury caused be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office." Applied to reject appellant Toling's defense.
• Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code — The aggravating circumstance of "that the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or by a band..." Applied to find the aggravating circumstance of band.
• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — The qualifying circumstance of treachery. Applied to qualify the killing as murder.
• Republic Act No. 3590 (Barrio Charter), Section 14(e) and (i) — Cited to show that the power to appoint barrio policemen is vested in the barrio captain, not the municipal mayor, thus invalidating Toling's claimed appointment.

• Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma, Aquino, and Martin, JJ., concurred.
• Castro, C.J., Fernando and Teehankee, JJ., concurred in the result.
• Barredo, J., wrote a separate note expressing doubt that the aggravating circumstance of band was sufficiently proven.
• Antonio, J., took no part.

• Justice Barredo — While concurring in the affirmance of the conviction, Justice Barredo noted that "the aggravating circumstances of band does not appear to me to have been sufficiently proven." This suggests a disagreement with the majority's finding on the presence of the aggravating circumstance of band, which could affect the imposable penalty.