GR 49181; (March, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-49181 March 27, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAMASO DEL VALLE, CARLOS LACABA and ROBERTO LACABA, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The appellants were convicted of murder for the killing of Mario Cursunada. The prosecution established that on May 5, 1971, during a fiesta in Bay, Laguna, the victim and the appellants, who were companions, engaged in a drinking spree. An altercation erupted between appellant Damaso del Valle and the victim. The victim’s mother, Natividad San Gregorio, intervened and brought her intoxicated son home to sleep. Shortly thereafter, from a distance of about 18 meters with an unobstructed view, Natividad witnessed Damaso del Valle, Carlos Lacaba, Roberto Lacaba, and an unidentified fourth person jump from the stairs of her house, carrying blood-stained weapons, and flee. She rushed home and found her son dead from multiple stab wounds.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery or evident premeditation, or the lesser crime of homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The legal logic centered on the absence of qualifying circumstances proven beyond reasonable doubt. The information alleged evident premeditation and treachery. For evident premeditation, the prosecution failed to establish the required elements: the time the accused decided to commit the crime, an act showing they clung to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time for reflection. These elements were absent. Treachery was also not proven, as the attack did not necessarily employ means that ensured the victim’s defenselessness without risk to the assailants. The victim, though asleep initially, might have been awake and aware during the assault, given the nature of the entry and attack by multiple persons.
However, the Court found the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and dwelling to be present. The attack by four armed individuals against one victim constituted abuse of superior strength. The crime was also committed in the victim’s dwelling, which is aggravating. Since abuse of superior strength was not alleged in the information, it could not qualify the killing to murder but only served as a generic aggravator. With no qualifying circumstance proven, the crime is homicide, aggravated by abuse of superior strength and dwelling. The penalty was thus reduced to the maximum period of reclusion temporal, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The civil indemnity was affirmed.