G.R. No. 92537 April 25, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jesus de Guzman y Rocha, Danilo Castro y Villavicencio, and Delfin Catap y Dizon (At-Large), accused. Jesus de Guzman y Rocha and Danilo Castro y Villavicencio, appellants.

FACTS

Jesus de Guzman, Danilo Castro, and Delfin Catap were charged with Murder for the killing of an unidentified male on November 16, 1984, in Angeles City. Only de Guzman and Castro were arrested and pleaded not guilty; Catap remained at-large. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of eyewitness Adelia Angeles. She testified that around 10:00 PM on November 16, 1984, she saw Delfin Catap slapping an unknown man tied to an ipil-ipil tree, with appellants de Guzman and Castro present. The victim pleaded for mercy. Upon seeing her, the three accused untied the man and took him toward the Pasig River. Later that night, Catap returned and confessed to Angeles and her husband Cornelio Deloso that they killed the man by smashing his face with a stone, warning them not to report it. The next day, an unidentified dead body was found along the Pasig River. Dr. Joven Esguerra, who conducted the autopsy, determined the cause of death was multiple stab wounds and maceration of the brain from blows to the face, and estimated time of death to be at least 48 hours prior, coinciding with the night of the incident. The defense of both appellants was alibi and denial, claiming they were at their respective homes that night and alleging that the witness harbored ill will against them. The trial court convicted them of Murder and sentenced them to Reclusion Perpetua.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in considering the testimony on Delfin Catap’s oral confession as competent evidence.
2. Whether the appellants’ warrantless arrest was illegal.
3. Whether the prosecution proved conspiracy and treachery to qualify the crime as Murder.
4. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the trial court’s decision.
1. On the evidence: The testimony regarding Catap’s extrajudicial confession was admissible not as a confession against the co-accused per se, but as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the appellants’ participation. Furthermore, appellant Danilo Castro’s admission to Police Corporal Dominador Cunanan that Catap killed the victim and that he and de Guzman acted as lookouts was established through the testimony of the officer and was admissible as a verbal admission.
2. On the arrest: Any irregularity in the warrantless arrest was cured when the appellants voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea and participating in the trial.
3. On the crime and circumstances: The qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were not proven. The crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. The appellants’ guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence, which satisfied the requirements of Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court: (a) there was more than one circumstance (positive identification by an eyewitness, the victim found dead near the crime scene, the medico-legal estimate of time of death coinciding with the incident, and the admissions/confession of co-accused); (b) the facts from which inferences were derived were proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances produced conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The alibi of the appellants, who were in the immediate vicinity of the crime, deserved scant consideration.
4. On the penalty and civil liability: The appellants were convicted of Homicide. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. The trial court erred in not awarding civil indemnity. The appellants were ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00, to be deposited with the trial court for claim by the heirs within ten years, after which it would be escheated to the state.