People v. Tayo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 31, 1978, between 10:00 and 11:00 P.M., Mauro Ahid, the watchman, saw Manuel Y. Tayo throw a hand grenade into the second floor of the Super Chicks Nightclub in Cebu City. The explosion wounded the owner, Manuel Toledo, his wife Rose Toledo, and several employees. Jimmy Pongos, the organist, sustained mortal wounds from the shrapnel and subsequently died. After throwing the grenade, Tayo fired his handgun four times towards the Cebu Autobus Company compound and fled. Manuel Toledo was hospitalized for nine days with expenses ranging from P10,000 to P12,000. Mauro Ahid was hospitalized for seven days due to shrapnel injuries to his feet. Tayo, who claimed to be ill at home, testified that he went to a baptismal party at midnight. He denied throwing the grenade. He admitted a prior investigation in 1975 for throwing a grenade at a dance. The trial court did not believe Tayo's alibi. Procedural History: The Circuit Criminal Court at Cebu City convicted Manuel Y. Tayo of the complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder, sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay civil indemnities to the heirs of Jimmy Pongos, and compensatory damages to Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Toledo and Mauro Ahid. The Petition: The accused's counsel de oficio contended that the trial court erred in not finding that Tayo's identity was not satisfactorily established, that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the award of damages was not justified.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the award of damages was justified. Whether the crime committed was a complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with the modification that in lieu of the death penalty, reclusion perpetua is imposed on the accused. Costs de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused: The Court held that Tayo's guilt was proven to a moral certainty. His identification was established by Mauro Ahid and Romeo Fernandez, the floor manager of the nightclub. Furthermore, Tayo was arrested two days after the incident at the residence of the victim, Jimmy Pongos, where he was allegedly a friend and was present during the vigil over Pongos' remains. The Court found Tayo's alibi unconvincing and disbelieved his denial of the act. The evidence presented by the prosecution was deemed sufficient to establish his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. On the award of damages: The Court affirmed the award of damages. The hospitalization expenses of Manuel Toledo were between P10,000 to P12,000, and he was confined for nine days. Mauro Ahid was hospitalized for seven days due to shrapnel injuries. Jimmy Pongos, the organist, died from his wounds. The trial court awarded P32,000 as indemnity to the heirs of Jimmy Pongos, P10,000 as compensatory damages to Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Toledo, and P700 as compensatory damages to Mauro Ahid. These awards were deemed justified based on the evidence presented regarding the injuries sustained and the expenses incurred. On the crime committed: The Court held that the single act of throwing the hand grenade, which exploded and caused death and injuries, constituted a complex crime of murder as to Pongos and multiple frustrated murder as to Toledo and attempted murder as to Ahid. This is consistent with the principle that when a single act results in multiple crimes, it is considered a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court cited jurisprudence that killing by explosion is treated as a single offense. Therefore, the penalty for the most serious crime, murder, was applicable, which, in this case, would have warranted the death penalty. However, due to the lack of the required ten votes, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
The single act of throwing a hand grenade which explodes and causes death and injuries constitutes a complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder, punishable by the penalty for the most serious crime, with the imposition of the death penalty in the absence of mitigating circumstances. However, for lack of the necessary ten votes, the next lower penalty, reclusion perpetua, shall be imposed.