GR 120920; (February, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120920 February 12, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISTITUTO CORTES Y PALCATAN AND ARIEL CORTES Y PLEBIAS, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Cristituto Cortes and Ariel Cortes were convicted of murder by the RTC of Cebu, Branch 28, Mandaue City, for the killing of Juanito Perez on September 6, 1992. The prosecution evidence, through witnesses Roel Flores and balut vendor Servillano Remolizan, established that around 12:30 a.m., while the victim was urinating near a store, accused Ariel, without provocation, stood up from a bench, approached the victim from behind, and stabbed him twice. The victim ran but was chased and boxed on the jaw by accused Cristituto, causing him to slump. The victim later died. Remolizan testified that prior to the incident, he overheard Ariel tell Cristituto, “if a young fellow by the name of Juanito will pass by, I will stab,” to which Cristituto replied, “if someone will come to the aid of that fellow, I will also stab that person.” The appellants claimed defense of a relative, alleging that the victim first attacked and mauled Cristituto, prompting Ariel to stab in his defense. The trial court rejected this defense, found conspiracy and treachery, convicted them of murder, and appreciated voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance for Ariel.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative in favor of accused-appellant Ariel Cortes.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused-appellants conspired to kill the victim.
3. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding no merit in the appeal.
1. The plea of defense of a relative was correctly rejected. The appellants failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The testimonies of two prosecution witnesses established that Ariel stabbed the victim without any provocation. The appellants’ version was uncorroborated and contradicted by their own evidence: Ariel’s police report stated he was the one boxed, contrary to his court testimony that Cristituto was being mauled; and Cristituto’s medical certificate showed scars on various body parts except his midsection, which he claimed was boxed.
2. The trial court correctly found conspiracy. Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the accused manifesting a common intent. The appellants were overheard planning to stab the victim and anyone aiding him. Their subsequent acts—Ariel stabbing the victim and Cristituto chasing and boxing him—demonstrated a unity of mind and concerted action to kill.
3. The trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden, unexpected, and from behind, rendering the unarmed and unsuspecting victim unable to defend himself. When the victim tried to escape, Cristituto pursued and boxed him, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. The guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.