People v. Cuenca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 16, 1974, at around 8:00 PM, Maximo Papa, a 25-year-old jeepney driver, and his seven-year-old son, Maximo Papa, Jr., stepped out of their house to buy food. They encountered Aurelio Sabater, Tranquilino Sabater, Victorino Cuenca, and Estanito Crisostomo, who appeared to be waiting for Maximo Papa. The four dragged Maximo Papa to a nearby warehouse of Gilman Enterprises. A gunshot was heard from the warehouse, after which Maximo Papa was seen running out, followed by the four malefactors. Maximo Papa fell on the ground near the street corner, and Cuenca shot him four or five times. Cuenca and Aurelio Sabater fled, while Tranquilino Sabater and Estanito Crisostomo reentered the warehouse. The victim sustained six entrance gunshot wounds, injuring vital organs and causing his death. Procedural History: The victim's widow and son witnessed the event. The widow, having been warned by the victim's employer about potential threats, followed her husband and witnessed the killing. A complaint for murder was filed against the four accused in the municipal court of Makati on January 8, 1965. The Sabater brothers were not apprehended. Cuenca surrendered voluntarily on November 15, 1972, and Crisostomo surrendered on November 17, 1972, almost eight years after the killing. An information for murder was filed against Cuenca and Crisostomo in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. After trial, the lower court convicted Cuenca and Crisostomo of murder, sentencing them to "life imprisonment" and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The accused appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellants contended that the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's evidence and in not upholding their defense of alibi. They also argued that the wife was not an eyewitness and that the son's testimony was unreliable due to his age at the time of the incident and the delay in his testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution. Whether the defense of alibi of the accused-appellants should be upheld. Whether the testimony of the seven-year-old son, given eight years after the incident, is credible. Whether voluntary surrender after a prolonged period of being fugitives from justice can be considered a mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment with the modification that the penalty should be reclusion perpetua and that the accused are solidarity liable for the indemnity. The appeal was found to be devoid of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution evidence and the defense of alibi: The Supreme Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit. The appellants were positively identified by the victim's widow and son, whose testimonies were corroborated by sketches of the crime scene. The widow's testimony, despite her initial paralysis with fear, was given credence. The Court also noted that the accused went into hiding for nearly eight years, which is an indicium of guilt. Cuenca's alibi was considered feeble, as his residence was a short distance from the crime scene, and the widow's statement indicated he fled in the direction of his home. Crisostomo's alibi was uncorroborated and contradicted by his positive identification by the victim's widow and son. The defense's attempt to shift blame to Aurelio Sabater, who was later killed, was viewed as convenient. On the reliability of the victim's son's testimony: The contention that the victim's son's testimony was invalid due to his age (seven years old) at the time of the incident and the eight-year delay was rejected. The Court cited previous cases where the testimony of children who witnessed the killing of their parents was given credence. It was held that the horrible manner of his father's death was likely indelibly engraved in his memory. By the time he testified, he was fifteen years old and a third-year high school student, making him a competent witness. On the voluntariness of surrender: The Court ruled that voluntary surrender to the authorities could not be considered mitigating under the circumstances. The surrender was not spontaneous; it occurred after the appellants had been fugitives for over seven years and found it impossible to live in resistance to authorities, especially after martial law was declared. Their surrender was likely motivated by a desire to avoid the fate of Aurelio Sabater, who was killed by police, and to avoid continued hostility and resistance. On the qualifying circumstances: Premeditation was not proven. However, treachery and abuse of superiority were found to have attended the killing. The four assailants unexpectedly grabbed the unarmed victim and brought him to the warehouse to kill him with impunity. They utilized their combined strength to overpower the helpless victim. The Court noted that the penalty for murder, considering the presence of treachery and abuse of superiority, should be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua, as per Articles 64(1) and 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
Treachery and abuse of superiority attended the killing, where the assailants unexpectedly grabbed the unarmed victim and brought him to a warehouse to kill him with impunity, utilizing their combined strength to overpower the helpless victim. Voluntary surrender after being fugitives for over seven years, especially after martial law was declared, is not considered mitigating.