G.R. No. 182918; June 6, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE @ “KALBO” and MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN @ “CELINE,” Accused, MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN, Appellant.

FACTS

On November 25, 2004, appellant Marcelino Ruiz Nimuan and Efren Patelan Lamberte were charged with murder before the RTC of Agoo, La Union. The prosecution established that at about 6:00 p.m. on September 22, 2004, Eulalia Garcia, tending her sari-sari store, saw the drunk and armed appellant and Lamberte, who stated they were “going to kill the doctor.” The victim, Dr. Jose Villanueva, later passed by on his way to his poultry farm, and the two followed on foot. Ten minutes later, Garcia heard two gunshots from the farm. Workers at the farm heard the shots and found the victim shot. After the shooting, the workers encountered the appellant and Lamberte; the appellant assaulted one worker with his carbine, and both threatened the workers not to tell anyone about the killing. A postmortem showed the victim died from shotgun wounds in the back. The appellant denied participation, claiming Lamberte alone shot the victim and threatened him to escape. The RTC found the appellant guilty of murder, appreciating treachery, evident premeditation, and nighttime, and imposed the death penalty with various damages. The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, appreciating treachery and evident premeditation but offsetting the latter with the mitigating circumstance of intoxication, and modified the damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the appellant’s conviction for murder and properly appreciated the attendant circumstances and penalties.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction for murder but modified the ruling on the circumstances and damages. The Court held that conspiracy was proven by the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies showing a common design to kill, with both accused armed and threatening witnesses afterward, making each equally guilty. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated as the victim was shot at the back in a sudden, unexpected attack. However, the Court found the CA erred in appreciating evident premeditation, as there was insufficient proof of the time the accused determined to commit the crime and a sufficient lapse of time for reflection, given the span of less than thirty minutes from their statement to the killing. The CA also erred in crediting the mitigating circumstance of intoxication, as mere testimony that the accused were drunk did not prove the intoxication impaired the appellant’s willpower or comprehension of his acts. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence. Thus, the CA decision was affirmed with modification: the appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱56,150.00 as actual damages, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱622,453.95 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity.