GR 132633; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132633 ; October 4, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO GEMOYA and RONILO TIONKO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of January 27, 1996, in Davao City, a commotion erupted in Barrio Malagamot. Accused Armando Gemoya and Ronilo Tionko, along with two others at large, armed themselves and confronted a group of people. They proceeded to attack Wilfredo Alferez, who was waiting for a taxi. Ronilo Tionko beat him with wood, another accomplice struck him with a pipe, and a third held his arms. Gemoya then shot Alferez in the chest with an “indian pana” (improvised bow and arrow). When Edgardo Jimenez and his daughter Rosalie came to Alferez’s aid, Gemoya shot again, hitting Rosalie in the ear. Alferez was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, while Rosalie Jimenez survived after treatment.
Two separate Informations were filed. In Criminal Case No. 36,460-96, the accused were charged with Murder for the killing of Alferez, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. In Criminal Case No. 35,459-96, they were charged with Frustrated Homicide for the wounding of Jimenez. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of both crimes, imposing the death penalty for murder and a prison term for frustrated homicide.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants of Murder and Frustrated Homicide, and in imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It affirmed the finding of conspiracy and upheld the Murder conviction for the death of Alferez, qualified by abuse of superior strength. However, it reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court found that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Gemoya was present and was not offset by any generic aggravating circumstance. Applying the rules on penalties, the minimum penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.
Regarding the injury to Rosalie Jimenez, the Court downgraded the conviction from Frustrated Homicide to Slight Physical Injuries. The prosecution failed to prove that the injury would have been fatal without timely medical intervention, a necessary element for frustrated homicide. The medical evidence showed the wound was not serious and did not incapacitate her. Thus, the proper penalty was arresto menor.
Finally, the Court ordered accused-appellants to solidarily pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of Alferez. The prison terms for both crimes are to be served concurrently.