People v. Orongan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marcelino Amado and his wife Rosario went to the office of Fiscal Arzadon to discuss a robbery in band case Marcelino had filed against his relatives, including Aquilino Lopez and Diomede Orongan's parents, stemming from a land dispute. After waiting fruitlessly, they proceeded to Lapu-Lapu City, then Mandaue City, and boarded a J.D. truck bound for Bogo. In Carmen, they spotted Diomede Orongan. Upon reaching Tinobdan, Marcelino, Rosario, and niece Luzminda Arnado alighted and walked towards their residence. At Cabulihan, Marcelino drank tuba. As they neared their home, passing under bamboo branches in a cleared cornfield, Marcelino shouted about a man ahead. He was immediately struck on the forearm. Luzminda fled. Rosario identified Aquilino Lopez as one of the attackers who then struck her. Diomede Orongan clubbed her on the head. Hiding, Rosario witnessed four men, two of whom she identified as Aquilino Lopez and Diomede Orongan, clubbing and stabbing her husband. Diomede Orongan was seen holding Marcelino by the hair and stabbing his neck. After Marcelino collapsed, Aquilino Lopez suggested they kill Rosario, but Diomede urged them to leave as people might have heard them. Marcelino, in his dying moments, told Rosario he recognized Aquilino Lopez and Diomede Orongan. Procedural History: Accused-appellants Diomede Orongan and Aquilino Lopez, along with two John Does, were charged with murder. They pleaded not guilty. The trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to pay P12,000.00 jointly and severally to the heirs of the deceased. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellants contended that the trial court erred in relying solely on the widow's testimony, disbelieving Aquilino's alibi despite weak identification, not considering mitigating circumstances for Diomede, and finding treachery present.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery, including consideration of aggravating circumstances. Whether evident premeditation was present as an aggravating circumstance. Whether Aquilino Lopez's alibi was credible. Whether Diomede Orongan acted in self-defense or incomplete self-defense. Whether voluntary surrender should be considered a mitigating circumstance for Diomede Orongan. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified, considering the abolition of capital punishment and the presence of mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction is affirmed with modification in the respective penalties. Aquilino Lopez is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from twelve (12) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Diomede Orongan is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Both are ordered to pay solidarily an increased indemnity of P30,000.00 to the victim's heirs, with full credit for preventive imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellants: The Court held that the guilt of the accused-appellants has been established to a degree of moral certainty. The eyewitness account of the widow, Rosario, was found credible and sufficient to prove the appellants' direct participation and complicity in the death of Marcelino. Her identification of the appellants was not mistaken, given her familiarity with them as neighbors and relatives, and the circumstances under which she saw them, including the victim's dying declaration. The claim of Diomede Orongan that he acted alone was contradicted by the widow's testimony and the autopsy report showing multiple wounds inflicted by both sharp-bladed and blunt instruments, indicating plurality of assailants. The Court noted that Orongan could not have inflicted all nine wounds with only a hunting knife and stabbing only thrice. On the qualification of treachery: The Court affirmed that the crime is murder qualified by treachery. The sudden and unexpected stabbing and clubbing of the unarmed victim ensured the killing without risk to the assailants and rendered the victim unable to defend himself. The Court found that the assailants lay in wait in a secluded place, demonstrating conspiracy through their concerted action and unity of purpose and execution, as evidenced by the multiple wounds inflicted on the victim. The aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, nighttime, and band were deemed absorbed by treachery. On evident premeditation: The Court agreed with the lower court that there was no evident premeditation, despite the known feud. The prosecution failed to adduce clear proof of the time the appellants resolved to kill Marcelino, which would demonstrate deliberate thought and reflection. On Aquilino Lopez's alibi: The alibi of Aquilino Lopez was found to be unmeritorious and not worthy of belief. Although corroborated by his mother and a client, their testimonies were considered inherently weak and biased. More importantly, the alibi could not overcome the victim's dying declaration and the widow's damaging testimony. The Court reiterated that alibi is a weak defense, especially between relatives, and is easy to fabricate. On Diomede Orongan's claim of self-defense: The claim of self-defense by Diomede Orongan was found to be of doubtful veracity. His version, standing alone and without corroboration, was unconvincing, especially since he sustained no injury while the victim suffered nine wounds. The onus of proving self-defense rests on the accused, and Orongan failed to discharge this burden. On voluntary surrender: The Court found that the lower court erred in not considering the extenuating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Diomede Orongan. The evidence showed that he surrendered himself to the barrio captain and subsequently to the police authorities immediately after the incident. On the modification of penalty: The Court modified the penalty in view of the abolition of capital punishment under the 1987 Constitution. The penalty for murder is now reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. For Aquilino Lopez, in the absence of modifying circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period. For Diomede Orongan, the penalty was reduced to the minimum period due to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Indeterminate Sentence Law was applied to determine the minimum and maximum periods of the penalties.
Main Doctrine
The killing of Marcelino Arnado was qualified by treachery, and conspiracy was established by the concerted action of the assailants. While evident premeditation was not proven, the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and nighttime were absorbed by treachery. The alibi of Aquilino Lopez was unmeritorious, and the claim of self-defense by Diomede Orongan was not credible. Voluntary surrender was considered a mitigating circumstance for Orongan.