People v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 20, 1959, Salvador Fernandez hired a jeepney driven by Victor Romero. Salvador picked up his companions, Herman and Ernesto Fernandez. Herman and Salvador instructed Victor to overtake an Alatco car. They stopped and borrowed bolos from two men, claiming they were pursuing a thief. Herman and Ernesto were armed with guns. Upon reaching San Jose, Libon, Albay, Herman, Salvador, and Ernesto alighted. Victor parked the jeepney and went to eat. He heard an explosion, saw Ernesto Fernandez shoot a man he did not recognize. The victim attempted to run, but Herman and Salvador overtook him and repeatedly hacked him with bolos until he fell. Ernesto shot the victim again in the forehead. The three brothers returned to the jeepney and instructed Victor to drive back to Polangui. They later picked up a woman and her two children and proceeded to Guinobatan. Procedural History: The accused were indicted for murder. They pleaded not guilty. The case experienced significant delays, prompting letters from the victim's widow and son to the Secretary of Justice and the Office of the President. One accused, Herman Fernandez, died during the trial. The Regional Trial Court of Albay convicted Salvador Fernandez and Ernesto Fernandez of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The accused appealed. The Petition: The defendants-appellants assigned errors concerning the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of conspiracy, the qualification of the crime by evident premeditation, the aggravation by cruelty, and the award of damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the defendants-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the defendants-appellants acted in conspiracy. Whether the commission of the crime was qualified by evident premeditation. Whether the commission of the crime was qualified by treachery. Whether the commission of the crime was aggravated by cruelty. Whether the defendants-appellants should be sentenced to pay damages.
Ruling
The decision appealed from, finding Salvador Fernandez and Ernesto Fernandez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is affirmed in all respects, except the P12,000.00 indemnity for the death of the victim which is increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. They were positively identified by prosecution witnesses Victor Romero and Epifanio Peñalosa as the perpetrators. Victor Romero, the driver of the jeepney hired by Salvador, was an eyewitness to the crime. Epifanio Peñalosa, a co-passenger of the victim, was also present at the scene. Their testimonies are corroborated by the autopsy report of Dr. Alfredo Se, which found three gunshot wounds and seventeen hack wounds, and by the testimony of Chief of Police Juan Cerdeña, who found two bolos at the scene. The defense of the accused, imputing the crime to their deceased brother Herman, was not credible and was belied by the positive identification by eyewitnesses. On the issue of conspiracy: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the acts of the appellants tending to show a continuity of criminal purpose. In this case, the accused-appellants arrived at the scene together, armed, and helped one another in assaulting the victim. They cooperated and labored to the same end – the death of the victim, leaving no doubt of the existence of conspiracy. On the issue of evident premeditation: To properly appreciate evident premeditation, it is necessary to establish proof of the time the offender determined to commit the crime, an act indicating adherence to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution for reflection. In this case, there is no proof that the accused-appellants met to discuss and agree to kill the victim, nor was the element of sufficient lapse of time for calm reflection established. On the issue of treachery qualifying the crime to murder: While evident premeditation may not have been established, treachery, which qualifies the killing to murder, has been amply proven. The attack on Porfirio Cananea was sudden and unexpected. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself when he was first shot by Ernesto. Treachery exists in a sudden and unexpected attack that renders the victim unable to defend himself due to the suddenness and severity of the attack. On the issue of aggravating circumstance of cruelty: The aggravating circumstance of cruelty cannot be considered. For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making the victim suffer slowly and gradually. While the victim was shot and hacked multiple times, the infliction of wounds was continuous rather than slow and gradual, without appreciable time intervening between wounds. This does not constitute cruelty. On the issue of damages: Every person criminally liable is civilly liable. Following precedent, the civil indemnity for murder is increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.
Main Doctrine
While evident premeditation may not have been established, treachery which qualifies the killing to murder has been amply proven. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. Cruelty requires slow and gradual infliction of pain, which is absent in continuous successive wounds.