GR L 31139; (October, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31139 October 12, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENATO MORAL, ABRAHAM ANTONIO, and LEOPOLDO PEDRIGOSA, defendants, ABRAHAM ANTONIO and LEOPOLDO PEDRIGOSA, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The accused Renato Moral, Alexander Moral (at large), Leopoldo Pedrigosa, and Abraham Antonio were charged with Murder. The prosecution established that on May 3, 1969, in Makati, the group, after a history of disturbances and a prior threat from Renato Moral against the victim Teodoro Casa, attacked him. Renato and Alexander Moral stabbed Casa, while appellants Pedrigosa and Antonio cooperated by throwing stones and hitting the victim with bottles during the assault, which resulted in Casa’s death. The appellants were convicted as accomplices by the trial court and sentenced to death.
The appellants challenged their conviction, arguing the prosecution evidence was insufficient. They also contested the trial court’s findings on the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of intoxication. The court a quo had considered intoxication as aggravating, having found the accused were habitual drunkards.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellants as accomplices; (2) the correctness of the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance; and (3) the proper appreciation of intoxication and the penalty imposed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The evidence, primarily from eyewitness Luz Casa (the victim’s sister) and others, was clear and credible in establishing that appellants Pedrigosa and Antonio, by their acts of throwing stones and hitting the victim with bottles, performed simultaneous acts of cooperation in the commission of the murder. Their participation was indispensable and facilitated the crime, solidifying their liability as accomplices.
The Court upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim being ambushed upon exiting the comfort room, leaving him no opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution deliberately ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants. However, the Court corrected the trial court’s error on intoxication. The prosecution failed to prove the accused were habitual drunkards; thus, intoxication should be considered as a mitigating, not aggravating, circumstance. Consequently, with one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating, and considering they were accomplices, the penalty was reduced. The proper penalty for an accomplice to murder is one degree lower than that for the principal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum. The civil indemnity was also increased to P30,000.00.