People v.

Carpo

G.R. No. 132676. April 4, 2001

FACTS:

Ruben Meriales testified that in the evening of 25 August 1996, he saw Jaime Carpo together with
Warlito Ibao and his son Roche all looking in the direction of Florentino Dulay’s house which was about a
meter to the south from where he was. He also saw Oscar Ibao, another son of Warlito, striding towards
Dulay’s hut. As soon as he reached the hut Oscar lifted the sawali mat near the wall and hurled
something inside. Oscar then scurried off towards the nearby creek with Roche following him. Seconds
later, a loud explosion shook the entire neighborhood and Teresita Dulay’s screams broke into the night.

Ruben rushed outside and ran towards Florentino’s hut where he saw the bloodied Florentino, Norwela
and Nissan lying side by side, both doused in blood, and a motionless Norma whose head was oozing
with blood.

On their way to the hospital, Norwela who had injuries on her chest and lower appendage died. Nissan
who was five years old, also died later. Noemi luckily survived.

The trial Court gave full credit to the testimony of Ruben and convicted Carpo et al. It accepted his
straightforward testimony. Accordingly, in accordance with Sec. 6, RA 7659, and Art. 48 of The RPC the
trial court imposed upon all of the accused the supreme penalty of death and ordered them to solidarily
indemnify the heirs of the deceased.

ISSUE:

What was the crime/s committed?

RULING:

Consistent with giving due deference to the observations of the trial court on credibility of witnesses, we
agree with the court a quo when it believed Ruben Meriales more than the defense witnesses. Indeed,
the trial court is best equipped to make an assessment of witnesses, and its factual findings are
generally not disturbed on appeal unless it has overlooked, misunderstood or disregarded important
facts, which is not true in the present case.

The defense proffered by the accused is alibi. But this is futile.

The trial court also correctly ruled that accused-appellants conspired in perpetrating the offense
charged. From the detailed account of Ruben, Jaime and Warlito positioned themselves near the hay
barn while Roche casually stood by the mango tree. As observed by the trial court, the presence of
Jaime, Warlito and Roche inescapably gave encouragement and a sense of security to Oscar, the group’s
preceptor. Surely, the latter was emboldened to commit the crime knowing that his co-conspirators
were not far behind.
Under the doctrine enunciated in People v. Tayo,the crime committed may otherwise be more
approriately denominated as murder qualified by explosion rather than by treachery. However, since it
was treachery that is alleged in the Information and appreciated by the trial court, the explosion of the
grenade which resulted in the death of Florentino, Norwela and Nissan, and the wounding of Noemi can
only be multiple murder complexed with attempted murder.

The crime committed against Noemi Dulay was correctly denominated by the trial court as attempted
murder considering that none of her injuries was fatal. Her attending physician even made conflicting
statements in the assessment of her wounds, to wit: although he said that Noemi could have died from
the shrapnel wound in her head, he specifically ruled out the possibility of “intercerebral
hemorrhage” and despite the seriousness of the possible complications of her injuries she would suffer
from physical incapacity for only ten (10) to fourteen (14) days.

As none of her wounds was severe as to cause her death, accused-appellants not having performed all
the acts of execution that would have brought it about, the crime is only attempted murder.

Since the three (3) murders and attempted murder were produced by a single act, namely, the explosion
caused by the hurling of a grenade into the bedroom of the Dulays, the case comes under Art. 48 of The
Revised Penal Code on complex crimes. Article 48 provides that the penalty for the more serious crime,
which in the present case is reclusion perpetua to death, should be applied in its maximum period. As
the crime was complexed, the death penalty was properly imposed by the trial court.

People v. Tabaco

G.R. Nos. 100382-100385. March 19, 1997

FACTS:

The group of the late Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey, Cagayan, arrived at the cockpit arena while
the accused Mario Tabaco was seated on the arm of the bench situated at the lower portion of the
arena about more than three (3) meters away, from the place where the late Mayor and his group were
seated when he suddenly without warning or provocation, shot the late mayor Jorge Arreola, with his
M-14 rifle, followed by several successive burst of gunfire, resulting in the shooting to death of Mayor
Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan and Pat. Romeo Regunton, although the latter managed
to run passing through the western gate near the gaffers cage but was chased by accused Tabaco.
Regunton was later found dead inside the canteen of Mrs. Amparo Go inside the Octagon cockpit arena.

Pat. Mariano Retreta of INP Buguey, who was then at the Co’s canteen, saw the accused going out
rushing from the cockpit arena, at a distance of one meter. He tried to pacify Tabaco. Meanwhile, Sgt.
Benito Raquepo,one of those assigned to maintain peace and order at the Octagon cockpit arena, who
was at the canteen taking snacks, heard five (5) successive gun reports coming from inside the cockpit
arena, and saw the accused Tabaco coming from inside the cockpit arena. They stood face to face
holding their rifles and when Tabaco pointed his gun towards Sgt. Raquepo, Pat. Retreta grappled for
the possession of the gun to disarm Tabaco, and in the process, the gun went off hitting Sgt. Raquepo
and also the late Jorge Siriban who happened to be near Raquepo. Siriban died on the spot while
Raquepo survived his wounds on his legs due to adequate medical treatment.

There were other persons injured that evening namely: (1) Antonio Chan injured on his right foot; (2)
Salvador Berbano injured on his right forearm and on his right abdomen and (3) Rosario Peneyra on his
face and right shoulder. But, the three, did not file their complaints.”

After trial, the court a quo, in a joint decision, found accused-appellant guilty as charged on all counts.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crimes charged.

2. Whether the trial court was in error in imposing only a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for
all four murder cases.

3. What penalties shall be imposed?

RULING:

1.

After a careful examination of the records, we find no ground or reason to set aside or disturb the trial
court’s assessment of credibility of the eyewitnesses when they testified pointing to accused-appellant
as the assailant in the shooting of the group of Ex-Mayor Arreola and his companions.

Accused-appellant cannot evade responsibility for his felonious acts, even if he did not intend the
consequences thereof for, in accordance with Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is
incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2.

We note that while the accused was found guilty in all four (4) murder charges and the penalty
of reclusion perpetua should have been imposed on him in all four (4) murder charges, the trial court
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for all four murder charges. The trial court explained the
single sentence for four murder charges in this wise:

“Whether or not the criminal cases Nos. 259, 270, 284 and 317, involving the killings of Oscar Tabulog,
Jorge Arreola, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, respectively, should have been prosecuted under
only one Information.

The law provides:

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.

‘When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period. (as amended by Art. No. 400). (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code).’
Read as it should be, this article provides for two classes of crimes where a single penalty is to be
imposed; first, where the single act constitutes two or more g rave or less grave felonies (delito
compuesto); and second, when the offense is a necessarily means for committing the other (delito
complejo) and/or complex proper (People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748).

In the cases at bar, the Provincial Prosecutor filed four (4) separate Informations of murder, which
should have been otherwise, as the shooting to death of the four (4) victims should have been
prosecuted under one information, involving four (4) murder victims.

The evidence shows that the four (4) victims were FELLED by one single shot/burst of fire and/or
successive automatic gun fires, meaning continuous. Hence, it is a complex crime involving four
murdered victims, under the first category, where a single act of shooting constituted two or more grave
or less grave felonies (delito compuesto).

Paraphrasing a more recent decision of the Supreme Court, we say — as the deaths of Oscar Tahulog,
Jorge Arreola, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, were the result of one single act of the accused
Mario Tabaco, the penalty — is the penalty imposed for the more serious offense.

The more serious offense is murder, the killing have been attended by TREACHERY because the victims
were completely taken by surprise and had no means of defending themselves against Mario Tabaco’s
sudden attack. The penalty is imposable in its maximum degree, but as the death penalty is no longer
permitted the same is hereby reduced to a single penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for the four (4)
murders.

Accordingly, for homicide with Frustrated Homicide and it appearing also that the death of Jorge Siriban
and the wounding of Benito Raquepo, was the result of one single act of the accused Tabaco, the
applicable penalty is the penalty imposed for the more serious offense. The more serious offense is
HOMICIDE, to be imposed in its maximum degree of reclusion temporal.

There being no modifying circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that
should be imposed, and which is hereby imposed, upon the accused Mario Tabaco is 10 years and 1 day
of Prision Mayor as the minimum, to 17 years, 4 months, 1 day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum,
plus P30,000.00 actual damages for medical expenses of Benito Raquepo.

It was duly proved beyond doubt that the gun used by the accused, is admittedly an automatic powerful
weapon, more powerful than an M-16 armalite rifle. It is so powerful that the bullets can penetrate even
more than five persons resulting to their deaths.

We hold that the trial court was in error in imposing only a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for all
four murder cases. The trial court holding that a complex crime was committed since “the evidence
shows that the four (4) victims were FELLED by one single shot/burst of fire and/or successive automatic
gun fires, meaning continuous (emphasis ours)” does not hold water.

“In the case at bar, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the death of each of
the five persons who were killed by appellant and the physical injuries inflicted upon each of the two
other persons injured were not caused by the performance by the accused of one simple act as provided
for by said article. Although it is true that several successive shots were fired by the accused in a short
space of time, yet the factor which must be taken into consideration is that, to each death caused or
physical injuries inflicted upon the victims, corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by the accused,
who thus made himself criminally liable for as many offenses as those resulting from every singe act that
produced the same. Although apparently he perpetrated a series of offenses successively in a matter of
seconds, yet each person killed and each person injured by him became the victim, respectively, of a
separate crime of homicide or frustrated homicide. Except for the fact that five crimes of homicide and
two cases of frustrated homicide were committed successively during the tragic incident, legally
speaking there is nothing that would connect one of them with its companion offenses.”

Furthermore, the trial court’s reliance on the case of People vs. Lawas is misplaced. The doctrine
enunciated in said case only applies when it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused by
numerous killers. In the case at bench, all of the deaths are attributed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to
the accused-appellant.

3.

Consequently, the four murders which resulted from a burst of gunfire cannot be considered a complex
crime. They are separate crimes. The accused-appellant must therefore be held liable for each and every
death he has caused, and sentenced accordingly to four sentences of reclusion perpetua.

No reversible error having been committed by the trial court in finding accused-appellant guilty of four
(4) counts of Murder and one (1) count of Homicide with frustrated homicide, the judgment appealed
from should be, as it is, hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that four sentences of reclusion
perpetua be hereby imposed.

People v. Gallarde

G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000

FACTS:

Radel Gallarde was charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide in an information
whose accusatory portion reads as follows:

That on or about the 6th day of May 1997, in the evening, amidst the field located at Brgy. Trenchera,
Tayug, Pangasinan, the above-named accused, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one EDITHA TALAN, a
minor-10 years of age, against her will and consent, and thereafter, with intent to kill, cover the nose
and mouth of the said minor resulting to her death and then bury her in the field, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of said EDITHA TALAN.

The trial court found Gallarde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

ISSUE:
 1. Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting him of murder in an information charging him
of rape with homicide.

2. Whether or not Gallarde was guilty for the death of Editha.

RULING:

1.

We sustain Gallarde’s contention that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder in an information
charging him of rape with homicide. A reading of the accusatory portion of the information shows that
there was no allegation of any qualifying circumstance.

Although it is true that the term “homicide” as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to
be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason
or on the occasion of rape, it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the
evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense, the accused can be convicted
of the other.

In rape with homicide, in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support the
charge of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged and proved. Otherwise, it would
be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is
charged. It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or
information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an
information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no
independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.

In the absence then in the information of an allegation of any qualifying circumstance, Gallarde cannot
be convicted of murder. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is
charged in the complaint or information under which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and
convincing the evidence of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of any offense, unless it is
charged in the complaint or information for which he is tried, or is necessarily included in that which is
charged. He has a right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is
put on trial. To convict an accused of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information
under which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that right.

2.

Nevertheless, we agree with the trial court that the evidence for the prosecution, although
circumstantial, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Gallarde for the death of
Editha.

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its
conclusion and finding of guilt. The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct evidence to
sustain a judgment of conviction; the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily absolve an
accused from any criminal liability. Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had on the
basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the established circumstances constitute an unbroken
chain which leads one to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proved must be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with
any other hypothesis except that of guilty.

The rules on evidence and precedents sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial
evidence, as long as the following requisites are present:

(1) there must be more than one circumstance;

(2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and

(3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the accused.

We cannot sustain the contention of Gallarde that he was not positively identified as the assailant since
there was no eyewitness to the actual commission of the crime. It does not follow that although nobody
saw Gallarde in the act of killing Editha, nobody can be said to have positively identified him. Positive
identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per se to that of being an eyewitness to
the very act of commission of the crime.

As discussed above, the circumstantial evidence as established by the prosecution in this case and
enumerated by the trial court positively established the identity of Gallarde, and no one else, as the
person who killed Editha.

Homicide, which we find to be the only crime committed by Gallarde, is defined in Article 249 of the RPC
and is punished with reclusion temporal. In the absence of any modifying circumstance, it shall be
imposed in its medium period. Gallarde is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Accordingly, he can be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years of the
medium period of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of the
medium period of reclusion temporal as maximum.

The assailed decision of the RTC finding accused-appellant RADEL GALLARDE guilty of the crime of
murder is hereby modified.

RADEL GALLARDE is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of
Homicide, defined under Article 249 of the RPC.