People v. Recimiento, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 15, 1978, during a fiesta in Asturias, Cebu, a fight ensued near the house of barrio councilman Gregorio Macapaz. Gregorio, along with his son Frisco and a guest, responded to a scream. Frisco's wife reported that appellants Esperidion and Romeo Recimiento were fighting with Gali Lacaba. Gregorio approached the protagonists, urging them not to harm Lacaba, who was their cousin. Romeo then allegedly stabbed Gregorio on the chest with a small bolo, followed by Esperidion stabbing Gregorio on the chest with a stainless hunting knife. As Gregorio fell, he cried for help. Frisco and his brother Elpidio arrived, and the appellants allegedly continued stabbing Gregorio. Gregorio died before reaching his house. The municipal health officer's autopsy revealed stab wounds, with the cause of death being internal hemorrhage due to a stab wound penetrating the heart. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu found both Esperidion Recimiento, Jr. and Romeo Recimiento guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Esperidion and the aggravating circumstance of complete disregard of respect due to the offended party's age and rank against both. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, and to pay costs. The Petition: Appellants Romeo and Esperidion appealed the decision. Romeo sought complete acquittal, claiming no part in the killing. Esperidion sought modification of the crime from murder to simple homicide. The Solicitor General recommended modifying the crime to homicide but insisted on Romeo's participation as a co-principal or co-conspirator.
Issue(s)
Whether Romeo Recimiento participated in the stabbing of the deceased. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide.
Ruling
The appealed decision was modified. Romeo Recimiento was acquitted due to reasonable doubt. Esperidion Recimiento, Jr. was convicted of homicide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.00, and to pay costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Romeo Recimiento's participation: The Court found that Romeo's guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Several circumstances cast doubt on his involvement: (1) only two witnesses, both sons of the deceased, testified against Romeo, and their relationship could be a motive for testifying falsely, unlike a non-relative witness like Freddie Tabañag who did not testify; (2) the autopsy report indicated wounds consistent with one bladed instrument, yet the prosecution alleged two different weapons used by the appellants; (3) Frisco Macapaz's testimony regarding who delivered the first blow was inconsistent, varying between Esperidion and Romeo; (4) the defense explained that Esperidion surrendered voluntarily, and Romeo's presence at the police station was to visit his brother, not to flee, which would have been indicated in the police blotter if he were equally guilty. The Court noted that if Romeo had inflicted multiple stab wounds on vital parts, Freddie Tabañag, who was present, would have seen his participation. The dying declaration, testified to only by Frisco, was also deemed not fully credible due to Frisco's inconsistent testimony. Therefore, Romeo was acquitted. On the issue of the crime committed: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the crime committed was simple homicide, not murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present, as the deceased approached the protagonists and was not attacked from behind or in a manner that deprived him of any chance to defend himself. The Court found that the deceased's act of approaching the quarrelling parties, with a lamp in hand, to pacify them, did not constitute an attack that could be characterized as treacherous. The circumstances did not establish that the appellants deliberately and consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to ensure the consummation of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the offended party might have made. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, reducing the crime to homicide.
Main Doctrine
The Court acquitted Romeo Recimiento due to insufficient evidence establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, modifying the crime committed by Esperidion Recimiento, Jr. from murder to homicide, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.