PEOPLE vs. CYRUS VILLANUEVA y ISORENA alias “Tutoy” and ALVIN SAYSON y ESPONCILLA alias “Alvin Talangka,”
G.R. No. 226475
MARCH 13, 2017
FACTS:
The accused-appellants were charged in an Information dated January 2, 2012, that on or about the 1st day of January, 2012, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, with intent to kill and with the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, conspiring and confederating with one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab one, Enrico Enriquez y Vinluan on the left side of his chest, thus causing fatal injury which directly caused his death.
On January 19, 2012, the prosecution moved to admit an amended information to include Christian Jay Valencia as an accused which was granted by the RTC in its Order dated February 8, 2012. With this a warrant of arrest was issued against Valencia but he still remains at large. Upon arraignment, the accused-appellants entered a plea of not guilty to the charge against them. After pre-trial conference, trial on the merits of the case ensued.
With this, the RTC rendered a Decision dated September 16, 2014, finding the accused-appellants GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC and accordingly sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and are likewise directed to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Enrico Enriquez the following: 1. Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; 2. Php26,032.02 as actual damages; 3. Php75,000.00 as moral damages; and 4. Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Unperturbed, the accused-appellants appealed the RTC decision to the CA, with the claim that the RTC erred in ruling that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of murder. They maintained that the RTC improperly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
So, on April 21, 2016, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of murder rendered by the RTC in its Decision dated September 16, 2014. The CA dismissed the instant appeal and the judgment dated September 16, 2014 of the RTC, Branch 276 of Muntinlupa City in Criminal Case No. 12-001 is hereby affirmed.
ISSUE:
That the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision dated September 16, 2014, which found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
RULING:
The appeal is partly meritorious. The following essential elements must be present in order to warrant a conviction for the crime of murder: 1. that a person was killed; 2. that the accused killed him or her; 3. that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and 4. that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. One of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, which qualifies the killing of the victim to murder is abuse of superior strength.
However, according to the SC, the prosecution failed to establish the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Both the lower courts concluded that the accused-appellants and Valencia, having the intent to kill Enrico, employed abuse of superior strength to ensure the execution and success of the crime. The SC openly declared that this conclusion is baseless.
In this case, the SC stated that the prosecution failed to present evidence as regards the relative disparity in age, size, strength or force between the accused-appellants and Valencia, on one hand, and Enrico, on the other. Indeed, the lower courts merely inferred the existence of qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength on the facts that Enrico was attacked by three assailants, the accused-appellants and Valencia, who were armed with a knife and a stone. However, mere superiority in numbers does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength.
Accordingly, the SC is compelled to disregard the finding of the existence of abuse of superior strength by the lower courts. The accused-appellants’ guilt is, thus limited to the crime of homicide.
The SC dismissed the appeal and hereby affirmed with modification the Decision dated April 21, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Cr-HC No. 07069. Accused-appellants Cyrus Villanueva y Isorena and Alvin Sayson y Esponcilla are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC and shall accordingly each suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prison mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. They are directed to pay the heirs of victim Enrico Enriquez Php26,032.02 as actual damages, Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and Php50,000.00 as moral damages. They are likewise ordered to pay interest on all monetary awards for damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum for the date of finality of this Decision until fully satisfied.
SUB-ISSUES
A. The accused-appellants’ claim that there was no proof of the conspiracy among them and Valencia. The SC stated that it is untenable it is because a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. The evidence presented by the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants and Valencia, through their acts, indeed agreed to kill Enrico.
B. The accused-appellants’ contention as regards the validity of their warrantless arrest. The SC openly declares that this contention is without merit or bearing anymore. They never raised the supposed illegality of their arrest prior to their arraignment. In fact, nowhere in any part of the proceedings before the RTC did the accused-appellants assail the validity of their arrest. They just only brought up the supposed irregularity in their arrest for the first time in their appeal to the CA. It has been ruled time and again that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity with regard to his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before his arraignment. Any objection involving the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Digested by jsg
No comments:
Post a Comment