People vs. Santillan y Villanueva and Borromeo y Natividad

Abuse of superior strength requires not only a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors but also proof that the aggressors purposely sought or deliberately took advantage of that superiority; the mere fact of multiple assailants does not per se establish the circumstance, and alternate attacks negate its presence.

On the evening of March 28, 2004, Ernesto Garcia was fatally stabbed in Caloocan City. Before dying, he told his daughter Julie Ann that he had been attacked by “Dodong” (Geraldo Santillan), Eugene (Eugene Borromeo), Ramil, and a certain “Palaka.” Geraldo and Eugene were subsequently charged with murder, the Information alleging that they conspired to attack Ernesto with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. The trial court convicted both of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, a ruling the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification as to damages. Accused-appellants maintained their innocence on appeal, challenging the admissibility of the dying declaration and the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance.

• The Stabbing Incident: On March 28, 2004, at about 7:30 p.m., Andres Cartnueva invited Ernesto Garcia to go out. They proceeded to the end of an alley. Minutes later, Michael Garcia, Ernesto’s son, saw his father running toward their gate while being chased by Ramil and Geraldo Santillan. Ramil stabbed Ernesto in the back; Geraldo, also armed, attempted to stab Ernesto but missed.
• The Dying Declaration: Ernesto reached the gate and embraced Michael. Michael called his sister Julie Ann for help, then left to fetch their uncle. Julie Ann asked Ernesto who his assailants were. Ernesto, wounded and vomiting blood, answered, “Dodong, Eugene, Ramil, and a certain ‘Palaka.’” He collapsed and died soon after.
• Medical Findings: Dr. Felimon Porciuncula, Jr. conducted the autopsy and found multiple incise and stab wounds, including a fatal wound piercing the right lung, trachea, and esophagus. He noted defense wounds on the hands, indicating resistance, and frontal injuries suggesting a face-to-face confrontation. The medico-legal officer opined that the wounds could have been inflicted by more than one assailant using a single-bladed sharp instrument.
• Defense of Geraldo: Geraldo testified that he was asleep at home on the evening of the incident when policemen arrested him. He claimed he had prior altercations with Ernesto—Ernesto had hacked him on the head on March 14, 2004, prompting Geraldo to file a frustrated murder complaint; a barangay complaint was also filed in November 2003. He denied retaliating.
• Defense of Eugene: Eugene deposed that he was in Camarin, Zapote, Caloocan City, on the night of the killing, collecting payment for his mother and later playing video carrera. He returned home to learn of Ernesto’s death. He stated he learned of the murder charge only in November 2005 when securing a clearance.
• Corroborating Defense Witnesses: Teresita Arias, sister of accused Julious Esmena, testified she saw Geraldo sleeping before the stabbing and later witnessed his arrest. Clarita Amen claimed she was at Geraldo’s mother’s house for a massage and saw Geraldo asleep before and after the incident, but not during its commission.

• Inadmissibility of Dying Declaration: Accused-appellants argued that Ernesto’s ante-mortem statement was inadmissible because darkness made it improbable for him to identify his assailants, thus he would have been incompetent to testify had he survived. They posited that the identification was based on mere speculation.
• Inadmissibility as Res Gestae: They contended that the statement did not meet the requisites for res gestae because the circumstances did not guarantee spontaneity and reliability.
• Failure to Prove Abuse of Superior Strength: Accused-appellants maintained that the prosecution failed to prove that they purposely took advantage of superior strength. Michael’s testimony only showed two persons chasing Ernesto and attacking one after the other; such alternate attacks negate the circumstance. There was no evidence of deliberate design to exploit numerical or weapon superiority.
• Reasonable Doubt: They asserted that the evidence did not rise to moral certainty, reducing their accountability to a mere possibility.

• Admissibility of Dying Declaration: The OSG countered that all requisites for a dying declaration were present: the statement concerned the cause and circumstances of death, Ernesto was conscious of impending death, he would have been competent as a witness, and the declaration was offered in a murder case. The claim of darkness was speculative and belied by medical evidence of face-to-face confrontation and defense wounds.
• Admissibility as Res Gestae: The statement also qualified as part of the res gestae because it pertained to a startling occurrence, was made before Ernesto could contrive, and involved the immediately attending circumstances of the stabbing.
• Proof of Abuse of Superior Strength: The prosecution argued that the combination of numerical superiority and the use of bladed weapons against an unarmed victim constituted a notorious inequality of forces that the assailants deliberately took advantage of to ensure the killing.

• Admissibility of Dying Declaration/Res Gestae: Whether Ernesto’s identification of his assailants was admissible as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Participation: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Geraldo and Eugene were among the assailants.
• Presence of Abuse of Superior Strength: Whether the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly appreciated to elevate the crime to murder.

• Admissibility of Dying Declaration/Res Gestae: The dying declaration was properly admitted. All four requisites were present: the statement concerned the cause and surrounding circumstances of death; Ernesto was under a consciousness of impending death due to his grave wounds; he would have been competent to testify as a witness had he survived; and the declaration was offered in a prosecution for murder. The allegation that darkness prevented identification was rejected as conjectural and contradicted by the medico-legal evidence of defense wounds and frontal injuries, which showed that Ernesto faced his assailants and was in a position to recognize them. The statement was likewise admissible as part of the res gestae, having been spontaneously uttered in response to a startling occurrence before Ernesto had time to contrive, and it concerned the immediately attending circumstances of the stabbing.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Participation: The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Geraldo and Eugene were among the perpetrators. The dying declaration, corroborated by Michael’s eyewitness account of the chase and stabbing, constituted positive identification that prevailed over the accused’s alibis and denials.
• Presence of Abuse of Superior Strength: Abuse of superior strength was improperly appreciated. The evidence merely showed two persons chasing the victim and attacking alternately. Under People v. Beduya, the sole fact of multiple assailants does not per se establish the qualifying circumstance; the prosecution must prove that the aggressors purposely sought or deliberately took advantage of a notorious inequality of forces. Michael’s testimony demonstrated that the attacks of Ramil and Geraldo were delivered one after the other, not simultaneously; settled jurisprudence holds that alternate attacks negate abuse of superior strength. The dying declaration identified the assailants but did not narrate how they cooperated to exploit combined strength. In the absence of evidence showing a deliberate design to use excessive force out of proportion to the victim’s means of defense, the qualifying circumstance cannot stand. The crime committed is homicide, not murder.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — The circumstance is present when there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, and the aggressor purposely sought or deliberately took advantage of that superiority. The mere fact that multiple persons attacked the victim does not per se establish the circumstance; the evidence must show that the assailants had a deliberate intent to use excessive force out of proportion to the victim’s means of defense. Where the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength. The prosecution must prove not only numerical or weapon superiority but also that the assailants cooperated in such a way as to secure an advantage from their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. Here, the dying declaration named the assailants but contained no indicia of a deliberate design to exploit numerical or weapon superiority; the eyewitness testimony showed only alternate attacks and no participation by Eugene in the chase.
• Dying Declaration (Ante-Mortem Statement) — A dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (a) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant would have been competent as a witness had he survived; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the declarant is the victim. All requisites were satisfied in this case.
• Res Gestae — A declaration or utterance is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when: (a) the principal act is a startling occurrence; (b) the statement was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statement concerns the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. Ernesto’s statement to Julie Ann met these requisites.

• “Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.” — quoting People v. Beduya, articulating the standard for appreciating the qualifying circumstance.
• “It is settled that when the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength.” — applying People v. Baltar, Jr., a rule directly dispositive of the issue in this case.
• “Aside from naming his assailants, Ernesto’s ante mortem statement is bereft of any indicia that will convince the Court that the perpetrators espoused a deliberate design to utilize the advantage of number and weapons. Thus, the dearth in the prosecution’s evidence impels a downgrading of the nature of the offense committed from murder to homicide.”

• People v. Beduya, 641 Phil. 399 (2010) — Controlling precedent defining abuse of superior strength and requiring proof that assailants purposely sought or deliberately took advantage of inequality of forces; applied to reject the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance.
• People v. Baltar, Jr., 401 Phil. 1 (2000) — Cited for the settled rule that alternate attacks do not constitute abuse of superior strength.
• People v. Salafranca, 682 Phil. 470 (2012) — Cited for the requisites of a dying declaration and of res gestae; applied to uphold the admissibility of Ernesto’s statement.
• People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 — Used as basis for reducing the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to P50,000.00 each in line with prevailing jurisprudence on homicide.
• People v. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015 — Cited on res gestae.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code (Murder) — The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was examined and found wanting; thus the killing did not constitute murder under this provision.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code (Homicide) — Applied as the proper denomination of the crime committed; penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period was imposed in the absence of modifying circumstances.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) — Applied to fix the indeterminate penalty, with the minimum taken from prision mayor (the penalty next lower in degree) and the maximum within the medium period of reclusion temporal.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Leonen, and Martires, JJ.