G.R. Nos. 128056-57; March 31, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCOS PARAMIL y CARURUCAN, DANILO DELA CRUZ y VICENTE and WILLIAM OSOTIO @ “IYOK,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the killing of tricycle driver Lito Ignacio and the taking of his tricycle on June 7, 1995, in Tayug, Pangasinan. The owner, Nelson Aquino, reported Ignacio and the vehicle missing after he failed to return. The following day, appellant Danilo dela Cruz was apprehended in Isabela while driving the stolen motorcycle unit. He confessed to the theft and implicated his companions, appellants Marcos Paramil and William Osotio. Paramil was arrested, but Osotio escaped. Ignacio’s body was later found; the medico-legal report indicated death from massive intracranial hemorrhage due to a head injury.
The Regional Trial Court convicted all three accused of Murder and Carnapping, imposing the death penalty for each crime. The court found conspiracy and the aggravating circumstance of superior strength in the killing. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review due to the imposition of the death penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of Murder, qualified by treachery, and properly imposed the death penalty for both Murder and Carnapping.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. On the charge of Murder, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The information alleged the accused were “armed with stone and firearm,” and they “hit and shoot” the victim. The prosecution evidence, however, did not establish how the attack commenced. The medico-legal report only confirmed the fatal head injury but could not specify the sequence of events or whether the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim unable to defend himself. Without clear and convincing proof of the manner of execution ensuring the victim’s defenselessness, treachery cannot be appreciated. Thus, the crime is Homicide, not Murder. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly established, as three armed men attacked a single victim.
Regarding Carnapping, the Court affirmed the conviction under Republic Act No. 6539 . However, it ruled that the imposition of the death penalty was erroneous. The law prescribes the penalty of imprisonment from 17 years, 4 months to 30 years for carnapping. The death penalty is imposed only when the owner, driver, or occupant is killed or raped in the course of carnapping. Here, the killing of the driver was not proven to be an integral part of the carnapping; the two crimes were tried separately. Therefore, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was further modified to an indeterminate sentence. The awards of damages were also adjusted, deleting moral damages for lack of basis and granting actual damages to the tricycle owner.