GR 226475; (March, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226475 March 13, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. CYRUS VILLANUEVA y ISORENA and ALVIN SAYSON y ESPONCILLA, Accused-Appellants
FACTS
Accused-appellants Cyrus Villanueva and Alvin Sayson, along with an at-large co-accused Christian Jay Valencia, were charged with Murder for the killing of Enrico Enriquez on January 1, 2012, in Muntinlupa City. The prosecution, through eyewitness Amie Bañaga, alleged that the three men arrived together looking for the victim. Upon locating him at a tricycle terminal, they simultaneously attacked: Villanueva punched Enriquez, Sayson hit him with a stone wrapped in a shirt, and Valencia stabbed him twice in the chest, causing his death. The accused-appellants presented a different version, claiming they merely chanced upon an argument between Valencia and the victim, tried to pacify them, and fled after Valencia stabbed Enriquez and ran away. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of Murder, finding conspiracy and appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellants are guilty of Murder or a lesser offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts regarding the appellants’ participation, upholding the credibility of the prosecution eyewitness and rejecting the defense of denial. The Court found that the appellants, by their concerted actions of punching and hitting the victim with a stone, rendered him defenseless and facilitated the fatal stabbing by their co-accused, Valencia. This established conspiracy, making all participants equally liable for the consequences of the criminal act.
However, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not sufficiently proven. The Information alleged it, but the prosecution failed to present specific evidence demonstrating how the appellants’ relative strength was purposely used to facilitate the crime. Mere superiority in numbers or weapons alone does not automatically constitute this qualifying circumstance; it must be shown that such advantage was deliberately employed to ensure the commission of the crime. Absent this specific proof, the crime is properly Homicide, not Murder. Consequently, the appellants were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.