People v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The deceased, Sergio de Guzman, was a passenger on a mini-bus driven by appellant Fernando Valdez, with appellants Frankie Soriano and a "John Doe" as conductors. While en route, the bus stopped, and the driver Valdez alighted for about twenty minutes. Upon his return, he handed a scythe to Soriano. The bus then proceeded rapidly. At their destination, the bus was stopped by the deceased and two companions. As the deceased was about to alight, the bus was abruptly started, preventing his exit. Soriano and "John Doe" then attacked the deceased inside the bus, boxing and kicking him, with Soriano inflicting a wound on the deceased's face with the scythe. Despite pleas to stop and the passengers' shouts, the appellants continued the assault. Soriano then kicked the deceased out of the bus. Immediately thereafter, Valdez maneuvered the bus in a zigzag manner, running over the deceased, who died instantaneously. Valdez then turned off the headlights and sped away. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch III, Dagupan City, convicted Frankie Soriano and Fernando Valdez of Murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Sergio de Guzman in the amount of P12,000.00. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the killing deliberate and qualified by treachery, use of a motor vehicle, and superior strength; in concluding Valdez was an enemy of the deceased; in holding they should have reported the incident; in dismissing their explanation of panic due to drunken passengers attempting to pull Valdez out; and in not finding the death accidental.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Sergio de Guzman was accidental or deliberate. Whether the killing was qualified as Murder by the use of a motor vehicle. Whether treachery was an attendant circumstance. Whether abuse of superior strength was an attendant circumstance. Whether conspiracy existed between the appellants. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. Whether the civil indemnity was correctly imposed.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed, with the civil indemnity raised to P30,000.00. The death of Sergio de Guzman was deliberate and qualified as Murder by the use of a motor vehicle. Conspiracy was inferred from the concerted actions of the appellants. The generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was appreciated, offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, leading to the imposition of reclusion perpetua in its medium period.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the killing was accidental or deliberate: The evidence on record overwhelmingly supports the trial court's conclusion that the killing was deliberate. Three eyewitnesses testified that the appellants stared at the victim, the bus suddenly accelerated as the victim was about to alight, and the victim was mauled by the conductors armed with a scythe and an iron pipe. The victim was then kicked out of the bus, and the driver deliberately ran over him. The autopsy findings, particularly the flattened head and macerated brain tissue, corroborate the eyewitness accounts of the victim being run over. The appellants' claims of avoiding stones and panicking due to drunken passengers are unconvincing, especially considering Valdez's actions of switching off the headlights, speeding away, and deviating from the normal route. Furthermore, their failure to report the incident to the police is contrary to natural human behavior if the death were truly accidental. On whether the killing was qualified as Murder by the use of a motor vehicle: The indictment against the appellants is Murder attended by the use of a motor vehicle. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides that murder is committed by means of motor vehicle. In this case, the victim was mauled inside the mini-bus, ejected from it, and then deliberately run over by the same vehicle. This clearly falls under the qualifying circumstance of the use of a motor vehicle to commit the crime, as established in prior jurisprudence. On whether treachery was an attendant circumstance: The Court found that treachery was not satisfactorily established because the evidence did not show that the victim was completely unaware when attacked; the eyewitnesses merely stated he was mauled until he fell. Treachery requires proof that the mode of attack was intended to insure accomplishment of the crime without risk to the assailant. On whether abuse of superior strength was an attendant circumstance: The circumstance of abuse of superiority was correctly appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. It was proven that the two conductors cooperated in attacking the victim, taking advantage of their combined strength to overpower him and push him out of the vehicle, enabling the driver to complete the crime. On whether conspiracy existed between the appellants: The existence of conspiracy can be inferred from the concerted action of the appellants. While the conductors were attacking the victim, the driver Valdez, instead of stopping the bus despite passengers' cries, continued to drive and did not attempt to stop the mauling. Crucially, he deliberately ran over the victim after he was ejected, switched off the headlights, and sped away. These actions evinced a community of criminal purpose and design between the appellants. On whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated: The Court appreciated the voluntary surrender of the appellants to the Station Commander at Mangaldan as a mitigating circumstance in their favor. On whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed: Considering the qualifying aggravating circumstance of the use of a motor vehicle, the crime is Murder, punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty imposable is in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. On whether the civil indemnity was correctly imposed: The civil indemnity was raised from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The use of a motor vehicle to commit murder, where the victim is mauled inside the vehicle, ejected, and then deliberately run over, qualifies the crime as murder. Abuse of superior strength is a generic aggravating circumstance, and voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance. Conspiracy can be inferred from concerted actions.