People v. Pajenado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During a party in barrio Dapdap, Las Navas, Samar, the deceased Jorge Tapong was observed to be drunk. The barrio captain ordered two barrio policemen to escort Tapong home. While en route, five accused, armed with pieces of wood, emerged and attacked Tapong. Alfonso Pajenado focused a flashlight on Tapong's eyes while the others beat him with the wood. The barrio captain witnessed the assault and attempted to intervene, but the accused fled after Tapong fell. Tapong was brought home but died on the way to seek medical attention. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Samar found the accused guilty of Murder and sentenced them to death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, and to pay costs. The Petition: The case was under mandatory review by the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused are guilty of murder. Whether treachery and/or abuse of superior strength qualify the killing as murder. Whether conspiracy was sufficiently proven. Whether Aniceto Toling acted in the lawful performance of a duty. Whether the aggravating circumstance of committing the offense by a band was present. Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong can be appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused guilty of murder. The penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua due to lack of the necessary votes. The indemnity was increased to P12,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused and conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy could be inferred from the conduct of the five accused. They emerged together, were all armed with pieces of wood, Alfonso Pajenado used a flashlight to blind the victim while the others beat him, and they all fled after the victim fell. This demonstrated a community of design to commit the crime. On the qualifying circumstances of murder: The Court held that treachery was present because the five accused suddenly intercepted Tapong while he was on his way home. They attacked him in a manner that insured the consummation of the crime without risk to themselves. The victim was unarmed, drunk, and had no time to defend himself due to the suddenness of the assault. The Court noted that abuse of superior strength, if present, would be absorbed by treachery. On Aniceto Toling's claim of lawful performance of duty: The Court rejected Toling's defense. His claim of being a barrio policeman was found not credible as his appointment was void. Furthermore, his actions after the incident, such as running away from the scene and not immediately informing the barrio captain, were inconsistent with someone performing a lawful duty and indicated guilt. On the aggravating circumstance of committing the offense by a band: The Court found this circumstance to be present, as the offense was committed by five armed individuals acting in concert. On the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong: This mitigating circumstance was not appreciated because the offense was characterized by treachery, and the appellants fled only after the victim had fallen, indicating a clear intent to cause harm. On the penalty: The crime committed was murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of being committed by a band. The penalty should have been death. However, due to the lack of the necessary number of votes, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
The crime committed was murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of the offense having been committed by a band. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to lack of the necessary votes for the death penalty.