People vs. Ramolete

A killing by firearm of an unarmed victim attempting to flee through a window, preceded by deceitful reconnaissance and surprise with the sole exit blocked, is murder qualified by treachery; where the manner of inflicting the fatal wound is not clearly proved, the killing is only homicide even if authorship is established.

Mariano Ramolete, seventy years old, and his wife Calixta Rabot resided at Barrio Paratong, Sta. Catalina, Ilocos Sur, where relatives and neighbors gathered for social occasions. Appellant Quirino Ramolete, a twenty-four-year-old farmer, was Mariano's nephew by a collateral line, their fathers being cousins, and habitually dined in Mariano's house without known misunderstanding. Severino Refuerzo, twenty years old, and Alfredo Rayray, twenty-one years old, were visitors and card players in the locality with a prior violent incident involving Patricio Ragil, a friend of Quirino Ramolete.

In the evening of June 24, 1961, the spouses Mariano Ramolete and Calixta Rabot held a gathering in their house at Barrio Paratong, Sta. Catalina, Ilocos Sur to celebrate the birth of a grandchild of Nicasia Rabanal, daughter-in-law by Calixta's first marriage. Relatives, neighbors and friends played the card game briska near the door of the sala for stakes of lemon candies or vicks drops, among them Severino Refuerzo and Alfredo Rayray, while the house was lighted by a Coleman lamp and a lantern. At about ten o'clock Quirino Ramolete entered the sala, asked for candy, received candy from Refuerzo and Rayray, ate it, and left the house.

About a minute later Quirino returned accompanied by Andres Acosta and Faustino Rabara, each armed with a gun. Quirino stood at the door, the only ingress and egress of the house, with Acosta and Rabara behind him, and pointed their weapons at the trapped players. Addressing Rayray, Quirino said he would shoot him, prompting Calixta Rabot to plead with him and the guests to shout, disperse, hide and flee. Quirino instructed Rabara and Acosta to go down and watch those jumping out, then shot Refuerzo while Refuerzo was jumping through the window into the batalan or porch, shot Mariano who was in the batalan, and also shot Rayray downstairs. Refuerzo and Mariano died that same night while Rayray was wounded.

Doctor B.C. Eduarte found on seventy-year-old Mariano two gunshot wounds: one in the left buttocks without exit and a through-and-through abdominal wound entering at the anterior superior iliac spine and exiting at the right iliac region, perforating the small intestines nine times and mesentery three times and causing death by shock with severe hemorrhage. Doctor Moises R. Arce found on twenty-year-old Refuerzo three through-and-through wounds with entries on the back and exits in front, involving liver, blood vessels and intestine, causing death by internal and external hemorrhage, and concluded the assailant was behind Refuerzo and likely used one thirty-caliber rifle. Rayray suffered gunshot wounds on the arm and leg, was hospitalized for more than one month, incapacitated from farming for one year, and spent one thousand pesos for treatment with four hundred pesos lost income.

Thereafter Quirino slept in the house of Francisco Ramolete at Barrio Sinaban, went the next morning to Acosta's house and to the ricefields, and on June 30, 1961 boarded a bus with Acosta to Barrio Sta. Cruz, Ballesteros, Cagayan, where he stayed in the house of Jacobo Olanino until arrested by a Constabulary sergeant on July 27, 1961. In a statement dated July 31, 1961 before Corporal Jaime C. Foronda, Quirino admitted shooting Rayray with his paltik gun and affirmed that Acosta shot Mariano while Rabara shot Refuerzo with forty-five caliber pistols, but at trial testified that Rabara shot Mariano and was non-committal on who shot Refuerzo. At the last hearing he presented through Corporal Cirilo Ducay an alleged dying declaration of Mariano thumbmarked in blood stating in substance that the declarant did not know who shot him but that Quirino holding a gun had come inside with an unnamed companion. The trial court gave no probative value to that declaration and, crediting eyewitnesses Calixta Rabot and Enriqueta Refuerzo, fifteen-year-old sister of Severino, found Quirino's flight a sign of guilt and convicted him despite his denial of shooting Refuerzo and Mariano and his admission of injuring Rayray.

• Death of Refuerzo — Homicide Only: Petitioner argued that the killing of Refuerzo was only homicide and not murder because no deceit and trickery were employed, Refuerzo was not waylaid or trapped pursuant to a preconceived plot, treachery at the inception of the attack was not proved, and no showing was made that appellant was not exposed to risk requiring defense.
• Death of Mariano Ramolete — Non-Authorship: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution failed to prove that Quirino Ramolete killed Mariano Ramolete, citing portions of Enriqueta Refuerzo's and Calixta Rabot's testimonies that they did not see Quirino firing at Mariano because a wall separated them.
• Injuries to Rayray — Lesiones Graves: Petitioner submitted that the conviction for lesiones graves for wounding Rayray should not be disturbed.

• Death of Mariano Ramolete — Capital Murder: Respondent countered that the death penalty, instead of reclusion perpetua, should be imposed for appellant's killing of Mariano Ramolete.
• Injuries to Rayray — Attempted Murder: Respondent argued that the offense committed with respect to Rayray was attempted murder rather than lesiones graves.
• Treachery: Respondent maintained that treachery was present because the wounds on the back indicate the victims were shot from behind.

• Killing of Mariano Ramolete — Authorship and Qualification: Whether appellant Quirino Ramolete killed Mariano Ramolete and whether capital punishment should be imposed for that crime.
• Killing of Refuerzo — Murder vs. Homicide: Whether the killing of Severino Refuerzo should be categorized as simple homicide or as murder qualified by treachery and premeditation.
• Wounding of Rayray — Attempted Murder vs. Lesiones Graves: Whether appellant's admitted infliction of physical injuries on Alfredo Rayray should be regarded as attempted murder and not lesiones graves.

• Killing of Mariano Ramolete — Authorship and Qualification: Yes in part. Authorship was established but treachery was not; the killing is homicide aggravated by dwelling, not capital murder.
• Killing of Refuerzo — Murder vs. Homicide: Murder. Treachery qualified the killing, while evident premeditation was not proved; dwelling does not aggravate as to a mere visitor.
• Wounding of Rayray — Attempted Murder vs. Lesiones Graves: Attempted homicide, not lesiones graves nor attempted murder, there being intent to kill without treachery and without performance of all acts of execution, with no modifying circumstances.

• Killing of Mariano Ramolete — Authorship and Qualification: Authorship was established because impartial perusal of the entire testimonies of Enriqueta Refuerzo and Calixta Rabot shows categorical identification of Quirino Ramolete as the shooter of both Refuerzo and Mariano, with defense quotations taken out of context, corroborated by flight to Ballesteros as a sign of guilt and by the ambiguous dying declaration itself implying complicity. Treachery was not established because, notwithstanding proof of responsibility, the prosecution left a palpable nebulousness as to how Mariano received the fatal abdominal entry wound and buttocks wound, so the benefit of the doubt required homicide aggravated only by dwelling, he having been killed in his own house without provocation.
• Killing of Refuerzo — Murder vs. Homicide: Treachery was manifest because appellant first came unarmed with ostensibly pacific intentions to reconnoiter and ascertain the victims' presence, amounting to trickery or deceit, then returned armed with confederates, stationed himself at the only exit, surprised the unarmed occupants, and shot the defenseless Refuerzo from behind as he jumped through the window to the batalan, inflicting three back entries and insuring the killing without risk to the assailant. Reliance was placed on the rule that attack on a fleeing defenseless person and firearm attack on unarmed victims trapped inside a house is treacherous, while evident premeditation failed for lack of proof of time of determination, outward manifestation of clinging to it, and sufficient interval for reflection; dwelling was inapplicable to Refuerzo as a mere visitor, and treachery absorbed abuse of superiority and nocturnity.
• Wounding of Rayray — Attempted Murder vs. Lesiones Graves: Attempted homicide was committed because appellant intended to kill Rayray but did not perform all acts of execution necessary to consummate killing, the arm and leg wounds not affecting vital organs and not being mortal. Treachery was absent because Quirino first warned Rayray that he would be shot, and no modifying circumstances attended the assault, requiring correction of the lesiones graves conviction and rejection of attempted murder.

• Treachery or alevosia — Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods or forms ensuring execution without risk to himself arising from defense the offended party might make. It was applied to qualify Refuerzo's killing because deceitful reconnaissance, blocking the sole exit, surprise, and shooting from behind a defenseless victim fleeing through a window insured death without risk; it was not applied to Mariano's killing because the precise manner of shooting was left nebulous.
• Attack on fleeing and trapped unarmed victims as treacherous — An attack on a person running away and completely defenseless is treacherous, as is a firearm attack on unarmed victims with no means of defense or escape because trapped inside a house. These rules from People vs. Logroño and People vs. Hairal and Tajiril supported the finding of treachery in Refuerzo's shooting.
• Evident premeditation — requisites — Evident premeditation requires (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (b) an act manifestly indicating clinging to that determination, and (c) sufficient interval between determination and execution to allow reflection and overcoming of the will. It was not found because, although planning was manifest and the assault was not momentary impulse, those three elements were not proved.
• Dwelling or morada as aggravating — Dwelling aggravates when the crime is committed in the victim's own house without provocation on his part, but does not aggravate the killing of a mere visitor therein. Thus it aggravated Mariano's homicide but not Refuerzo's murder.
• Absorption by treachery — Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength and nocturnity, making separate consideration unnecessary once treachery is found.
• Attempted homicide — Attempted homicide exists where intent to kill is present but not all acts of execution necessary to consummate death are performed and the wounds are not mortal. It was applied to Rayray's non-vital arm and leg wounds, without treachery because of prior warning and without other modifying circumstances.
• Reclusion perpetua vs. life imprisonment — The correct penalty designation is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment. The trial court's double life imprisonment was thus corrected.

• "You stand up, Alfredo, and I will shoot you." — This warning uttered by appellant to Rayray proved absence of treachery in the assault on Rayray while establishing intent and the ensuing flight of the occupants.
• "Treachery (alevosia) was manifest in that manner of assault because it insured the killing without any risk to the assailant (Par. 16, Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code)." — This states the ratio for qualifying Refuerzo's killing as murder based on deceit, surprise, and shooting a defenseless fleeing victim from behind.
• "The term 'life imprisonment' is not correct (People vs. Mobe, 81 Phil. 58)." — This corrects the trial court's penalty nomenclature and requires designation as reclusion perpetua.
• "Q. Who shoot (sic) you? — A. I don't know only Quirino (sic) Ramolete who was holding a gun who come inside my house and his companion whom I don't know his name" (sic)." — This ambiguous alleged dying declaration was denied probative value as exculpatory proof yet noted to imply appellant's complicity.

• People vs. Logroño, 96 Phil. 975 — Cited as authority that attack on a person running away and completely defenseless is treacherous, supporting murder qualification for Refuerzo's killing.
• People vs. Sawit, 100 Phil. 507, 512 — Cited comparatively on treachery in attacks on fleeing victims.
• People vs. Hairal and Tajiril, 97 Phil. 966 — Cited as authority that firearm attack on unarmed victims trapped inside a house with no means of defense or escape is treacherous.
• People vs. Basa, 83 Phil. 622 — Cited with Viada for the rule that dwelling does not aggravate as to a mere visitor, excluding dwelling in Refuerzo's killing.
• People vs. Celespara, 82 Phil. 399 — Cited additionally on dwelling inapplicability to a visitor.
• People vs. Fuentesuela, 73 Phil. 553 — Cited for the three requisites of evident premeditation, which were not proved.
• U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530, 547 — Cited for the same premeditation requisites including sufficient reflection interval.
• People vs. Mobe, 81 Phil. 58 — Followed to correct life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua.

• Par. 16, Art. 14, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as ensuring execution without risk from defense; applied to qualify Refuerzo's killing and rejected for Mariano's and Rayray's cases for lack of proof and prior warning, respectively.
• Par. 3, Art. 14, Revised Penal Code — Provides dwelling as aggravating when crime is committed in the victim's home without provocation; applied to Mariano's homicide but not to Refuerzo as a visitor.
• Arts. 64(1) and 248, Revised Penal Code — Govern penalty for murder; applied to affirm reclusion perpetua for Refuerzo's killing.
• Art. 70, Revised Penal Code — Fixes forty years maximum duration for service of multiple sentences; applied to the three sentences imposed.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Esguerra, Fernandez and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur; Teehankee and Antonio, JJ., concur in the result; Makasiar, J., took no part.