People vs. Samudio

A killing unattended by any proven qualifying circumstance is only homicide, not murder, and participants whose conspiracy as principals is not proven beyond reasonable doubt but who concurrently assisted the killing are liable only as accomplices.

At around 4:30 in the afternoon of July 20, 1991, Benjamin Samudio was walking home from his farm in San Isidro, San Andres, Catanduanes with Juan Villegas when they passed the house of Benjamin’s nephew, Antonio Samudio. Antonio was drinking “tuba” with Gerry Lucero, Senen Reazon, Augusto Badoria and Marlon Balmaceda, and Benjamin and Villegas each drank a glass or two before leaving. On his way home, Benjamin spoke for about 20 minutes with Baldomero San Juan, barangay captain of San Isidro, at the porch of Remedios Lucero’s house about a note authorizing Benjamin to cut trees for lumber. After Benjamin left, Baldomero followed behind, and upon reaching the house of Benjamin’s son Ely Samudio, where Antonio’s group had moved their drinking, Senen Reazon invited Baldomero inside while Benjamin proceeded home.

While resting about 20 meters away, Benjamin heard a cry for help from Ely’s wife and rushed to Ely’s house. Inside, he saw Antonio twice stab Baldomero with a knife locally known as “palas,” hitting the upper left chest and right belly, while Baldomero stood trying to parry the blows as Gerry held his left shoulder and Senen held his right shoulder; Badoria and Balmaceda remained seated on a bench. When Benjamin tried to wrest the knife from Antonio, his right ring finger was wounded and Antonio threatened him not to intervene, after which the weakened Baldomero fell on the kitchen floor. The four accused and Balmaceda then left and passed the store of barangay councilman Rogelio Monjardin, where Antonio declared he had just killed “your good for nothing Barangay Captain,” prompting Rogelio to tell Ely to fetch the CAFGUs.

Ruben San Juan, the victim’s son, heard the commotion while preparing a cart after fetching a carabao for barangay hall construction materials and rushed toward Ely’s house, meeting an unresponsive Antonio on the way and learning from Rogelio what had happened to his father. At around 9:00 that evening, Antonio barged back into Ely’s house armed with a bolo and a “palas,” shouted that they killed Baldomero, and asked Ruben if he would intervene for his father until Villegas pleaded that Ruben be spared. Outside, Antonio told Villegas he acted because of “Manoy Agust,” referring to Badoria, then went to Angeles Clopino’s house and asked that Barangay Captain Domingo Tarnate be fetched because he wanted to surrender; upon arrival of CAFGU members he surrendered and handed over the knife, and the next day was turned over to the San Andres Police Station. Dr. Eduardo Ko’s autopsy found four stab wounds and two incised wounds, with death due to injuries to internal organs from penetration of a sharp bladed instrument into the thoracic cavity.

According to the defense, Antonio admitted sole responsibility but claimed self-defense, alleging Baldomero hit him on the left cheek and boxed him on the stomach after Antonio said he could not work in the rehabilitation project without pay, that he was cornered when he tried to run, and that he then seized a “palas” and stabbed Baldomero. Lucero and Reazon, for their part, denied participation and claimed they had left Ely’s house before the killing. The trial court credited Benjamin Samudio’s straightforward testimony, rejected self-defense and alibi, and convicted the three appellants of murder.

• Lack of Conspiracy and Participation: Petitioner argued that nowhere in the record was participation shown, that there was no evidence they conspired and mutually helped one another in a common criminal design to make each principally liable, that Lucero and Reazon harbored no hatred or ill-feeling against Baldomero, and that they merely acted as spectators to the stabbing.
• Mitigation to Lesser Penalty: Petitioner maintained that the victim was not deliberately stabbed but was stabbed on impetuous impulse by Antonio Samudio, warranting a lesser penalty.

• Self-Defense: Whether accused-appellant Antonio Samudio established self-defense to exculpate himself for admittedly killing Baldomero San Juan.
• Qualifying Circumstances for Murder: Whether treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, or disregard of respect due to rank on account of being barangay captain attended the killing to qualify it as murder.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of Antonio Samudio.
• Conspiracy and Accomplice Liability: Whether conspiracy among the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether Gerry Lucero and Senen Reazon are liable as principals or only as accomplices.
• Actual Damages: Whether the award of P40,245.00 as actual damages was supported by credible proof.

• Self-Defense: No. Self-defense was not established, the accused having failed to prove unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence and his claim being contradicted by multiple wounds.
• Qualifying Circumstances for Murder: No. None of the alleged qualifying circumstances was proven as conclusively as the killing itself, so the crime is only homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code punishable by reclusion temporal.
• Voluntary Surrender: Yes. Voluntary surrender was appreciated for Antonio Samudio, the three requisites having been satisfied by his unsolicited surrender to CAFGU members with the weapon.
• Conspiracy and Accomplice Liability: No conspiracy as co-principals, but yes as accomplices. Lucero and Reazon were held liable only as accomplices, having concurrently assisted by holding the victim during successive stabs.
• Actual Damages: No. The P40,245.00 award was deleted for lack of credible proof, only substantiated death, wake or burial expenses being recoverable.

• Self-Defense: When self-defense is invoked, the burden shifts to the accused to establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) unlawful aggression by the victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation, with unlawful aggression as the indispensable element. Antonio’s testimony that Baldomero initiated the aggression was uncorroborated and self-serving, and reliance must be on the strength of defense evidence after open admission of the killing. The location and number of wounds — four stab wounds and two incised wounds — constituted physical evidence refuting reasonable necessity and self-defense.
• Qualifying Circumstances for Murder: Treachery requires (a) means of execution giving the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate and (b) deliberate or conscious adoption thereof, proven by clear and convincing evidence including the manner of attack. It could not be appreciated because sole eyewitness Benjamin Samudio did not see the inception and particulars of the attack. Evident premeditation requires proof of time of determination, an act manifestly indicating adherence thereto, and sufficient lapse for reflection, none of which was shown. Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate taking advantage of combined strength, not mere superiority in number, without direct proof of such intent. Disregard of rank requires proof of deliberate intent to offend or insult rank, which was not established.
• Voluntary Surrender: The requisites are (a) the offender had not actually been arrested, (b) surrender to a person in authority, and (c) voluntariness. Antonio requested Angeles Clopino to fetch Barangay Captain Domingo Tarnate to surrender, voluntarily submitted to arriving CAFGU members, and handed the stabbing knife, as confirmed by prosecution witness SPO2 Ramon Tugay. With one mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty was reclusion temporal in its minimum period, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied.
• Conspiracy and Accomplice Liability: Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt like the crime itself and cannot be presumed; mere presence, knowledge, or acquiescence is insufficient, and prior knowledge plus aid does not automatically make one a co-conspirator. Benjamin did not witness the inception and progression of the attack, so holding of the victim’s left and right shoulders during Antonio’s stabs did not establish common design beyond reasonable doubt. Doubt as between principal and accomplice is resolved in favor of the milder liability; Lucero and Reazon assisted the successive infliction of six wounds instead of warding off the assault or aiding the bleeding victim, and their alibi, the weakest defense, failed against positive identification by witnesses without ill motive. As accomplices, the penalty is one degree lower, i.e., prision mayor, in its medium period absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, subject to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Actual Damages: Only substantiated expenses genuinely incurred for death, wake or burial are recognized. The receipts offered were not in the name of Josefina San Juan or another immediate family member and were dated more than a year after death, hence without evidentiary value, while P50,000.00 civil indemnity remained due jointly and severally.

• Self-defense; burden and elements — One who admits the killing and invokes self-defense must prove by clear and convincing evidence (a) unlawful aggression by the victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation, with unlawful aggression as the most important element. Applied to reject Antonio’s uncorroborated claim, reinforced by multiple wounds negating reasonable necessity.
• Treachery — Treachery cannot be presumed and must be proved as conclusively as the killing, requiring employment of means giving the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate and deliberate adoption thereof, with the manner of attack proven. Applied to reject treachery where the sole eyewitness did not see the initial stage and particulars of the attack in People vs. Samudio.
• Evident premeditation — Requires proof of (1) time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an act manifestly indicating adherence to that determination, and (3) sufficient lapse between determination and execution for reflection. Applied to find the circumstance absent for lack of any such proof.
• Abuse of superior strength — Mere superiority in number does not suffice; it must be shown that aggressors deliberately took advantage of combined strength to consummate the offense. Applied to reject the circumstance for lack of direct proof of deliberate exploitation of inequality of force.
• Disregard of rank — Appreciated only upon proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult or offend the victim’s rank. Applied to reject the alleged aggravation despite the victim being barangay captain, for lack of specific proof of such intent.
• Voluntary surrender as mitigating — Requires (a) offender not yet arrested, (b) surrender to a person in authority, and (c) voluntariness. Applied to mitigate Antonio’s homicide penalty where he sought out authorities through Clopino and Tarnate and surrendered to CAFGUs with the weapon.
• Conspiracy; proof beyond reasonable doubt — Conspiracy must be established as convincingly as the crime itself and cannot be presumed; mere presence, knowledge of the plan, or acquiescence is insufficient. Applied to hold that holding the victim’s shoulders, without evidence of inception and common design, did not prove conspiracy as principals.
• Accomplice liability where conspiracy fails — Where proof of conspiracy is lacking, doubt between principal and accomplice is resolved in favor of the milder accomplice liability, punishable by the penalty next lower in degree under Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code. Applied to convict Lucero and Reazon only as accomplices in homicide for concurrent assistance during successive stabs.
• Alibi and bare denial — Alibi is the weakest defense and bare denial is negative self-serving evidence that cannot prevail over positive testimony absent ill motive to perjure. Applied to reject Lucero’s and Reazon’s denials against Benjamin Samudio’s and Rogelio Monjardin’s testimonies.
• Actual damages; proof required — Courts recognize only substantiated expenses genuinely incurred in connection with death, wake or burial. Applied to delete P40,245.00 where receipts were not in the heirs’ names and postdated death by more than a year.

• "Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself." — States the quantum and standard for appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder.
• "The existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed." — Anchors the requirement that conspiracy be proven beyond reasonable doubt like the criminal act itself.
• "Mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator." — Defines the insufficiency of presence or knowledge to establish co-principal liability.
• "Bare denial amounts to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law." — Explains the rejection of the alibi and denial offered against positive eyewitness testimony.

• People vs. Lazarte, G.R. No. 130711 — Cited for the elements of self-defense and the primacy of unlawful aggression.
• People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 130613 — Cited for the rule that one invoking self-defense relies on the strength of defense evidence after admitting the killing.
• People vs. Saragina, G.R. No. 128281 — Cited for the rule that multiple wounds refute self-defense.
• People vs. Albacin, G.R. No. 133918 — Cited for the two conditions of treachery.
• People vs. Torre, G.R. No. 130655; People vs. Orcula, G.R. No. 132350; People vs. Flores, G.R. No. 116794 — Cited for requiring proof of manner of attack before appreciating treachery.
• People vs. Tambis, 311 SCRA 430; People vs. Rebamontan, 305 SCRA 609 — Cited for the rule that mere superiority in number is not superior strength.
• People vs. Buluran, G.R. No. 113940 — Cited for requiring deliberate advantage of combined strength.
• People vs. Basao, 310 SCRA 743 — Cited for requiring proof of deliberate intent to insult rank.
• People vs. Cual, G.R. No. 131925 — Cited for the three requisites of voluntary surrender.
• People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 129371 — Cited for requiring conspiracy to be proved as convincingly as the crime itself.
• Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134730 — Cited for distinguishing conspirator from accomplice and for resolving doubt in favor of accomplice liability.
• People vs. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025 — Cited for rejecting bare denial against positive testimony.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder; held inapplicable absent proof of treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength or disregard of rank.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes homicide with reclusion temporal; applied as the crime committed by the principal.
• Article 52, Revised Penal Code — Imposes on accomplices in a consummated felony the penalty next lower in degree; applied to sentence Lucero and Reazon to prision mayor.
• Article 64 (1) and (2), Revised Penal Code — Governs application of divisible penalties with three periods; paragraph 2 imposed reclusion temporal in minimum period for one mitigating circumstance, paragraph 1 imposed prision mayor in medium period where no aggravating or mitigating attended.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix minimum within the penalty next lower and maximum within the imposable penalty for both the principal and the accomplices.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.