People v. Lopez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 3, 1965, during a novena in the house of Roman Villajuan in Barrio Mabasa, Argao, Cebu, a cockfight was held after the prayers. Among the attendees were Rufino Datuin and the accused Silverio Lopez, Crispulo Zamora, Juan Davis, Fortunato Davis, and Bonifacio Davis. While Rufino Datuin was attending to a vanquished gamecock, Fortunato Davis boxed him from behind, causing him to fall. Rufino Datuin stood up and fled, but the five accused gave chase, pelting him with stones. Approximately 150 meters from Villajuan's house, they overtook Rufino Datuin. Bonifacio Davis hacked him on the right shoulder, and as he fell, all five accused took turns assaulting him until he died. Procedural History: The accused were charged with Murder before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Upon arraignment, Silverio Lopez, Crispulo Zamora, Juan Davis, and Bonifacio Davis pleaded not guilty, while Fortunato Davis entered a conditional plea of guilty to homicide. The trial court found all accused guilty of murder and sentenced them accordingly, except Fortunato Davis, who was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty due to voluntary surrender. The heirs of the deceased were awarded indemnity and costs. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed, claiming the crime committed was homicide, with Fortunato Davis being solely responsible. They also assailed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was homicide or murder. Whether all the accused participated in the commission of the crime. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible. Whether the defenses of alibi and self-defense were tenable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the accused guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld for most of the accused. For Fortunato Davis, the indeterminate penalty was affirmed, taking into account voluntary surrender. The indemnity to the heirs was increased.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the crime committed was homicide or murder: The Court held that the crime was murder, qualified by treachery. Treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, commencing with Fortunato Davis boxing the victim from behind, followed by a chase where the victim was pelted with stones, and culminating in multiple hacking and stabbing blows. The victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The autopsy report detailed eleven wounds, including a clean-cut scalp wound with frontal bone fracture, a clean-cut temporo-frontal wound with temporal bone fracture, a clean-cut parietal wound, a clean-cut facial wound with nasal and maxillary bone fractures, a lacerated chain wound on the left side of the face, a clean-cut wound on the left forearm, a stab wound on the abdomen, a clean-cut wound on the right shoulder, a clean-cut wound on the right knee, and a clean-cut wound on the right thigh, with contusion-abrasion on the posterior aspect of the shoulder. The cause of death was attributed to fracture of the bones of the skull. The Court rejected the defense's claim that the crime was homicide, emphasizing the treacherous nature of the assault. On whether all the accused participated in the commission of the crime: The Court found that all five accused participated in the killing. Eyewitnesses consistently testified that when the victim ran after being hit from behind, the appellants threw stones at him, causing him to fall. Bonifacio Davis then hacked him on the shoulder and head. Juan Davis hit him on the forehead when he turned to face his assailants. Silverio Lopez hit him on the face with a rock, and Fortunato Davis slashed him several times with a knife. Crispulo Zamora also stabbed the victim in the abdomen. The Court found the collective action of the accused in pursuing, stoning, hacking, stabbing, and hitting the victim with a rock to be indicative of conspiracy and common purpose. On whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible: The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (Alberto Udioran, Roman Villajuan, and Potenciara Mamolo) to be credible. The contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by the appellants were deemed not of such magnitude as to render the testimonies improbable or incredible. Furthermore, no motive was imputed to these witnesses for them to falsify their testimonies against the appellants, with one witness even stating his wife was a close relative of the accused Davis. The Court found no error in the trial court's acceptance of the prosecution's version. On whether the defenses of alibi and self-defense were tenable: The Court rejected the defense of alibi interposed by Juan Davis, Bonifacio Davis, Crispulo Zamora, and Silverio Lopez. Their claimed locations were within the periphery of the crime scene and accessible, making it not impossible for them to have been present. The reasons they provided for their alleged implication were found to be flimsy and unworthy of belief. For instance, Silverio Lopez's claim of being offered money to kill Crispulo Zamora was not corroborated and appeared to be a last-minute fabrication. Crispulo Zamora's claim of being implicated due to a quarrel with Joaquin Datuin was also suspect, as he had a clear motive to bear a grudge against Rufino Datuin due to a prior conviction for chicken theft. Juan Davis's claim of advising Crispulo Zamora to report Joaquin Datuin's illegal firearm possession was not shown to be known by Susana Datuin, the deceased's daughter. Bonifacio Davis's claim of being implicated solely due to being Fortunato Davis's brother was also dismissed. The Court also found Fortunato Davis's claim of self-defense improbable, noting that a frail sexagenarian like Rufino Datuin would not likely confront a younger man to settle a land dispute, and it would be unnatural for Rufino Datuin to run away if he were the aggressor.
Main Doctrine
The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery, where the attack on the victim was sudden and unexpected, affording him no opportunity to defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is correctly imposed, with modifications for mitigating circumstances like voluntary surrender.