G.R. No. L-94709-10 June 15, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ruben Cabarrubias @ Amben and Zosimo Antiporda @ Samong, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting both appellants of murder. In Criminal Case No. 442, Ruben Cabarrubias was charged with the murder of 8-year-old Jonalyn Espiritu on July 31, 1986. In Criminal Case No. 443, Zosimo Antiporda was charged with the murder of Pedro Espiritu on July 13, 1986. Both incidents occurred around 7:00 PM in Barangay Patoc, Bucay, Abra. The cases were tried jointly due to their proximity in time and place. At his arraignment, Cabarrubias manifested a willingness to plead guilty to a lesser offense, but this was not accepted. Both pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution evidence established that on July 13, 1986, Pedro Espiritu arrived at his father Talledo’s house with a neck wound, identified his assailant as “Samong” (Antiporda), and died shortly after. On the same evening, screams were heard, and Domingo Espiritu found his granddaughter Jonalyn stabbed. She identified her assailant as “Nong Amben” (Cabarrubias). Jonalyn told her adoptive mother, Estefana Tubana, that she saw Antiporda stab Pedro and that both appellants chased her. Saturnina Belaras testified that Antiporda forcibly entered her house that night but left hurriedly when shouts for help were heard. Jonalyn died the next day from five wounds.
Cabarrubias admitted in court to killing both victims. He claimed he confronted Pedro about an attempt to electrocute his sister, Pedro attacked him with a bolo, and he stabbed Pedro in defense. He then claimed he was in a state bordering on insanity when he stabbed Jonalyn, who crossed his path. On appeal, he raised the defenses of insanity and acting under an irresistible force. Antiporda relied on an alibi, pointing to Cabarrubias’s testimony admitting the killing of Pedro, and argued lack of motive and difficult identification.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether the trial court correctly convicted Ruben Cabarrubias of murder for the killing of Jonalyn Espiritu; (2) Whether the trial court correctly convicted Zosimo Antiporda of murder for the killing of Pedro Espiritu; and (3) Whether the mitigating or aggravating circumstances were properly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications.
Regarding Criminal Case No. 442 (Cabarrubias): The Court found Cabarrubias guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The defense of insanity was rejected as it was not raised in the trial court and no evidence was presented to overcome the presumption of sanity. The claim of acting under an irresistible force was unsupported. The mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and passion or obfuscation were not appreciated. The killing of a child is characterized by treachery due to the victim’s weakness from tender age. However, the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of superior strength and nighttime were not properly appreciated; superior strength was not alleged in the information and is absorbed in treachery, and nighttime was not proven to have been purposely sought.
Regarding Criminal Case No. 443 (Antiporda): The Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The trial court erred in appreciating treachery, as the mode of attack was not proven positively. The defense of alibi was unavailing due to affirmative evidence placing Antiporda at the scene, including the dying declarations of Pedro and Jonalyn. Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime is definitely established. Nighttime was not properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED with modifications. In Criminal Case No. 442, Cabarrubias is found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay P50,000.00 indemnity to Jonalyn’s heirs. In Criminal Case No. 443, Antiporda is found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered to pay P50,000.00 indemnity to Pedro’s heirs.