People v. Empeinado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case concerns the murder of Bernardina Pacris, an elderly woman, on April 29, 1905. The accused, Ciriaco Empeinado, Pedro Panaligan, Onofre Leison, and Andres Natad, allegedly went to her house at night and fatally stabbed her with bolos. The prosecution alleged the crime was committed with premeditation and for reward, constituting assassination. Procedural History: The amended information was filed by the provincial fiscal of Cebu, accusing the defendants of murder. The trial court found the crime of assassination had been committed, with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and commission for reward, and the extenuating circumstance of race. Ciriaco Empeinado, Pedro Panaligan, and Andres Natad were convicted as principals and sentenced to life imprisonment, while Onofre Leison was convicted as an accomplice and sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. All were ordered to pay civil indemnity and costs. The Petition: The defendants, Ciriaco Empeinado, Pedro Panaligan, and Andres Natad, have appealed the decision of the lower court. Their appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for assassination. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including witness testimonies regarding the planning and execution of the murder, and admissions made by some of the accused. The Court also considered the admissibility of evidence related to a co-conspirator's confession and the proper application of aggravating and extenuating circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should be considered in addition to treachery. Whether Onofre Leison should be convicted as an accomplice or an accessory after the fact. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ciriaco Empeinado, Pedro Panaligan, and Andres Natad as principals in the crime of murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Onofre Leison was convicted as an accessory after the fact (encubridor) and sentenced to seven years of presidio mayor. The civil indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased was also affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity: The Court held that nocturnity should not be considered as a separate aggravating circumstance when it is an integral part of the treacherous plan to commit the crime. The Court reasoned that the act of taking advantage of the darkness of the night to commit the crime constituted a component of the treacherous conduct (alevosia), which had already been considered as a generic circumstance elevating the crime from homicide to murder. To consider nocturnity again would be to count the same element twice, which is contrary to the principles of penal law. The Court stated, "We do not think, however, that the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should be taken into consideration in fixing penalty, because the fact that advantage was taken of the darkness of the night to commit the crime constituted a part of the treacherous plan adopted for the purpose of killing the deceased, and this 'treachery' (alevosia) having been taken into consideration as a generic circumstance which raises the crime from that of homicide to that of assassination, nocturnity, which constituted one of the component parts of this treacherous conduct, should not again be taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance." On the conviction of Onofre Leison: The Court found that there was no evidence that Onofre Leison was present at the scene of the crime or took direct part in its commission. However, the evidence showed that he participated in sending messages to notify Andres Natad and received a share of the payment for the commission of the crime, knowing that the money was payment for the killing. The Court concluded that these facts were sufficient to establish his guilt as an encubridor (accessory after the fact), not as an accomplice, as found by the trial judge. The Court clarified the distinction, stating, "A conviction as 'accessory before the fact' can only be sustained when it appears that the accused cooperated in the execution of the offense by acts either prior to simultaneous therewith. (Art. 14, Penal Code.)" The penalty for an accessory after the fact is two degrees lower than that imposed upon the principal offenders. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found that the evidence of record, including the testimony of witnesses and admissions made by some of the accused, was sufficient to establish the guilt of Ciriaco Empeinado, Pedro Panaligan, and Andres Natad as principals in the crime of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that even if certain inadmissible evidence (the confession of Regino de Gracia) were excluded, there remained sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Court emphasized that the stabbing of Bernardina Pacris was done con alevosia (with treachery), depriving her of any opportunity for self-defense.
Main Doctrine
The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered when it is an integral part of the treacherous plan to commit murder, as treachery already encompasses the element of depriving the victim of defense by taking advantage of circumstances like the darkness of night. Furthermore, an accessory after the fact (encubridor) is subject to a penalty two degrees lower than that imposed upon the principal offenders.