People v. Hermosilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sometime in January 1979, Macario Plone, Jr. had an altercation with his neighbor, Leopoldo Lagradilla, because Plone's horse destroyed Lagradilla's coconut plants. On February 27, 1979, Macario Plone, Sr., his son, his three sons-in-law (Diego Hermosilla, Leopoldo Canete, Gregorio Relevante), and Raul Adap invited Lagradilla to drink tuba. Lagradilla left intoxicated and lay down on his balcony. The six accused followed him, offered to buy his pig, and upon being told he was not the owner, Olegario Plone, Canete, and Adap held Lagradilla's feet while Relevante stabbed him with a spear. Macario, Sr. hacked him in the abdomen, causing his intestines to come out, and Hermosilla struck him in the neck. The others continued stabbing him until he was dead. They brought his corpse to Macario, Jr.'s house. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental found all six accused guilty of murder. Macario Plone, Sr. was sentenced to death for being a recidivist, while the others were sentenced to "life imprisonment." They were ordered to indemnify the heirs of Leopoldo Lagradilla in the sum of P12,000. The Petition: The six accused appealed the decision. Counsel for the accused assailed the credibility of the eyewitness (Lagradilla's spouse), argued for the acceptance of Hermosilla's self-defense claim and the alibis of the other accused, and contended that the wounds could have been inflicted by one person.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Leopoldo Lagradilla constituted murder. Whether Diego Hermosilla acted in self-defense. Whether the alibis of Olegario Plone, Leopoldo Canete, Gregorio Relevante were credible. Whether the alibis of Macario Plone, Sr., and Raul Adap were credible. Whether Macario Plone, Sr. was a recidivist warranting the death penalty. Whether Raul Adap was entitled to a reduction of penalty due to minority, and whether Diego Hermosilla was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment with modifications regarding the penalties imposed on Macario Plone, Sr., Raul Adap, and Diego Hermosilla. The indemnity was ordered to be paid solidarily by the six accused.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the killing constituted murder: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the killing was murder. The eyewitness testimony of the victim's spouse established beyond reasonable doubt that all six accused acted in concert to kill Leopoldo Lagradilla. The killing was qualified by treachery, as the victim was attacked without any preliminaries while in an intoxicated and helpless state. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superiority was absorbed by treachery. The physician's testimony that the wounds could have been inflicted by one person was considered speculative, and the nature of the wounds (incised and stab wounds) indicated multiple assailants and weapons. On Diego Hermosilla's claim of self-defense: The Court rejected Hermosilla's claim of self-defense. His testimony that Lagradilla belittled his prowess as a weight-lifter and that they quarrelled, leading to the killing, was contradicted by the eyewitness account of a planned attack involving all six accused. The nature and number of wounds inflicted, particularly the hacking of the abdomen causing intestines to protrude and the multiple stab wounds, were inconsistent with a legitimate act of self-defense. On the alibis of Olegario Plone, Leopoldo Canete, Gregorio Relevante: The alibis presented by Olegario Plone, Leopoldo Canete, and Gregorio Relevante were disbelieved by the Court. These alibis placed them in their respective plantations or on errands at the time of the killing. However, the eyewitness testimony placed all six accused at the victim's house, participating in the attack. The Court found the eyewitness account more credible than the unsubstantiated alibis. On the alibis of Macario Plone, Sr., and Raul Adap: The alibis presented by Macario Plone, Sr., and Raul Adap were disbelieved by the Court. These alibis placed them in their respective plantations or on errands at the time of the killing. However, the eyewitness testimony placed all six accused at the victim's house, participating in the attack. The Court found the eyewitness account more credible than the unsubstantiated alibis. On Macario Plone, Sr. being a recidivist: The Court found that the imposition of the death penalty on Macario Plone, Sr. due to recidivism was unwarranted and erroneous. Recidivism must be alleged in the information and proven by certified copies of prior sentences presented as evidence during the trial. None of these procedural requirements were met in this case, as there was absolutely nothing in the record to support the conclusion of recidivism. On Raul Adap's minority and Diego Hermosilla's voluntary surrender: The Court ruled that Raul Adap was entitled to a two-degree reduction of his penalty due to his minority at the time of the commission of the crime. His affidavit stated he was less than 15 years old, and his subsequent testimony placed him at sixteen years old nineteen months later. This inconsistency, coupled with the initial statement, indicated he was indeed under 15 when the crime occurred, entitling him to the benefit of Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court granted Diego Hermosilla the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. He testified without contradiction that he surrendered to the Constabulary, and an investigator corroborated that Hermosilla was turned over to his headquarters. This voluntary surrender to the authorities is a recognized mitigating circumstance that should be considered in the imposition of the penalty.
Main Doctrine
The killing was murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of superiority, which is absorbed by treachery. Recidivism cannot be imposed without being alleged in the information and proven by certified copies of sentences. Minority reduces the penalty by two degrees. Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance.