People v. Cariño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 20, 1969, in Barrio Lasip, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, the deceased Onofre Evangelista alighted from a jeep. The accused Felipe Cariño, Pablo Ramos, and Martin Uson, who were drinking wine in a store, called for Onofre. Cariño offered Onofre a glass of wine, and as Onofre was about to drink, Cariño boloed him on the left hand. Before Onofre could escape, Cariño hit him again on the right hand. Onofre started to run towards a house. Pablo Ramos then retrieved a rifle from under a house and handed it to Felipe Cariño. The three accused, armed with bolos (Ramos and Uson) and a gun (Cariño), pursued Onofre. Upon reaching the house where Onofre had taken refuge, Cariño shot Onofre in the back as he had his back turned towards the window, causing his death. The prosecution's version was supported by the testimonies of the deceased's son, brother, and a friend. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan found Felipe Cariño, Pablo Ramos, and Martin Uson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, maintaining that the lower court erred in convicting them based on doubtful and incredible evidence, in not accepting their defense of alibi due to lack of positive identification during the initial investigation, in holding that conspiracy existed among them, and in finding that treachery attended the commission of the crime.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused were convicted on the basis of evidence riddled with serious doubts and incredibility. Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the appellants' defense of alibi. Whether the trial court erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the accused. Whether there was treachery in the commission of the crime.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan finding the accused Felipe Cariño, Pablo Ramos, and Martin Uson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder is affirmed. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon each of them is upheld, along with the civil indemnity and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of evidence riddled with serious doubts and incredibility: The Court found the appellants' contention without merit. While the prosecution witnesses, who were relatives and friends of the deceased, did not physically intervene to defend the victim, this did not invalidate their testimonies. The Court cited People vs. Tania stating that reactions to unusual situations vary, and not everyone can act decisively. Discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were deemed minor and did not destroy their credibility, consistent with rulings in People vs. Hantig and People vs. Fontanilla. The appellate court generally defers to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, as the trial court is in a better position to observe their deportment and manner of testifying, and no plain oversight of substantial facts was evident in this case. On the issue of rejecting the defense of alibi: The Court found the appellants' arguments unsustainable. The delay in the investigation was attributed to the PC control over the local police and the subsequent intervention of the Provincial Fiscal's office and the NBI, which eventually led to the arrest of Ramos and Uson over a year later, and Cariño's surrender later. The Court noted that witnesses might be afraid to talk due to the appellants roaming freely, and delay in revealing information does not render testimony false, as explained in People vs. Catao and People vs. Lao Wan Sing. The defense of alibi is considered weak, especially against direct eyewitness testimony, and must demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused being at the crime scene, which the appellants failed to do. The testimony of the store owner denying the incident was deemed unbelievable compared to the prosecution witnesses' accounts. On the issue of conspiracy: The Court rejected the appellants' contention that no conspiracy existed. The established facts demonstrated a common purpose: the three appellants were together when Cariño called the deceased; after the initial bolo attacks, Ramos procured a rifle and handed it to Cariño; all three pursued the fleeing victim, with Ramos and Uson drawing bolos; and upon reaching the refuge, Ramos and Uson positioned themselves to prevent escape while Cariño fired the fatal shot. These concerted actions, as per People vs. Alcantara, sufficiently show unity of purpose and action, even without direct proof of prior agreement. The Court reiterated the principle from People vs. Largo that conspiracy can be inferred from acts pointing to a joint purpose, and that the act of one conspirator is the act of all, as established in People vs. Jamero, et al. On the issue of treachery: The Court found that treachery was present, particularly in the manner of the killing. While the initial bolo attacks might be debatable regarding treachery due to a possible prior quarrel, the subsequent shooting of Onofre Evangelista in the back while he had taken refuge and was defenseless clearly evinced treachery. The deceased did not anticipate the shot and was in no position to evade or resist. The Court defined treachery as employing means to insure the execution of the offense without risk to the offender, citing People vs. Casalme. Even if treachery was not present at the inception, its existence at the consummation of the killing elevates the crime to murder, as held in U.S. vs. Baluyot.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design, and the act of one is the act of all. Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods or form which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the offense, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make, even if it may not be present at the inception of the attack but exists at the time of the consummation of the killing.