G.R. No. 87163 March 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO CASINGAL and REYNALDO HILUM, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Rolando Casingal and Reynaldo Hilum were charged with the murder of Eduardo Go. The information alleged that on or about April 17, 1985, in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, the appellants, conspiring and confederating together, armed with a lead pipe, kitchen knife, and ice pick, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, attacked, assaulted, and stabbed Eduardo Go, inflicting stab wounds that caused his death. Both pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with damages.
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from housemaid Jesusa Labuac, established that on April 16, 1985, at around 10:00 P.M., Casingal arrived home with Hilum. Later, Labuac was awakened by a noise (“kalabugan”) and shouts of “tama na, tama na” from Casingal’s room. At around 5:00 A.M. the next day, she saw appellants near Eduardo Go’s Toyota car in the garage, with a body resembling Go’s slumped inside the open trunk. Hilum carried some things into the house, then opened the gate for Casingal to drive the car out. After they left, Labuac saw blood stains on the living room floor and a blood-stained blanket. When appellants returned, Casingal warned her not to tell anyone she saw Go, and Hilum washed the blanket. Go’s car was later found parked near the Asian Development Bank in Pasay City, with blood dripping from the trunk. An autopsy by Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz revealed Go died from acute, massive hemorrhage secondary to over 100 stab wounds. Appellants left for Samar on April 18. They were arrested in June 1985.
The defense claimed they were drinking in Casingal’s room, caught a dog to butcher, and in the process, the dog escaped and was stabbed by Hilum, causing blood stains. They alleged Labuac testified against them due to a prior quarrel where Casingal boxed her and she threatened revenge.

ISSUE

1. Whether the decision is void because the judge who penned it did not hear the case and the stenographic notes of some prosecution witnesses were not transcribed when the decision was rendered.
2. Whether the grant of bail indicates the evidence of guilt is not strong, precluding a conviction.
3. Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict appellants.
4. Whether the crime committed is murder or homicide.

RULING

1. The decision is not void. The retaking of the testimonies of Dr. Muñoz and the cross-examination of Labuac showed their testimonies did not materially differ from the Medico-Legal Certificate and “Salaysay” already admitted. The testimony of Cpl. Leandro Abel, concerning the arrest and extrajudicial confessions (which the trial court ruled illegal), would not have affected the outcome. The judge could decide based on the available evidence.
2. The grant of bail does not preclude conviction. The order granting bail was defective as it contained no summary of the prosecution’s evidence or a pronouncement on the strength of the evidence of guilt, as required. Such an order, issued without evaluating the evidence, is a product of whim and caprice and lacks validity.
3. The circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict. The circumstances, consistent with each other and with the hypothesis of guilt while inconsistent with innocence, include: (a) appellants were together drinking in Casingal’s room on the night of the crime; (b) Labuac heard a commotion and shouts from the room; (c) she saw Go’s car with a body resembling Go in the trunk the next morning; (d) appellants were seen handling the car and blood-stained items; (e) they warned Labuac not to tell; (f) they fled to Samar the day after the body was discovered; (g) the defense of butchering a dog is inherently unbelievable and does not explain the over 100 stab wounds on Go’s body. Flight evidences a guilty conscience. The defense failed to prove Labuac had a strong ill motive to falsely implicate appellants in a heinous crime.
4. The crime committed is homicide, not murder. The qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were not proven. There was no evidence Casingal was part of any prior decision to kill Go. The mere fact two persons attacked the victim does not per se establish abuse of superior strength without proof of the relative strength and that excessive force was purposely used. Nighttime cannot be appreciated as aggravating as there was no evidence it was deliberately sought to facilitate the crime.
The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellants are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnity to the heirs is increased to P50,000.00. The award of P200,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages is deleted for lack of basis.