People v. Cempron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 1, 1982, at approximately 3:30 PM, Gregorio Gudelusao, a "mananari" (person who places gaffs on fighting cocks) and bet collector, was squatting on the ground in a cockpit in Cogon, Inabanga, Bohol, counting money. Alfredo Cempron approached Gudelusao from behind, holding a knife concealed beneath the wings of a fighting cock. Cempron then successively stabbed Gudelusao multiple times while the victim was unprepared and squatting. Gudelusao fell to the ground with his intestines exposed and later died due to massive blood loss. Cempron fled the scene. Later that evening, Cempron voluntarily surrendered to a barangay officer, along with the knife used. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Bohol convicted Alfredo Cempron of Murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with indemnification for damages. The trial court found treachery as a qualifying circumstance but did not consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Petition: The accused-appellant, Alfredo Cempron, appealed the decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove circumstances qualifying the act to Murder and that he acted in self-defense, thus should only be convicted of Homicide. He also contested the penalty imposed.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Gregorio Gudelusao was qualified by treachery, thus constituting Murder. Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It affirmed the conviction for Murder but adjusted the penalty by applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The indemnity was also increased. The dispositive portion stated: Alfredo Cempron is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, but the penalty, applying the indeterminate sentence law, to be imposed shall be from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to eighteen (18) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum and the indemnity is increased to thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) in line with the prevailing jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of treachery: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that treachery qualified the killing to Murder. The Court emphasized that treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution without any risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The facts presented, including the victim being squatting and counting money, the surprise attack from behind, and the concealment of the weapon, clearly demonstrated that the victim was given no opportunity to defend himself. The testimonies of Humberto Gudelusao and Severina Gudez corroborated the manner of the attack, highlighting the victim's unawareness and unpreparedness. The accused's claim of self-defense was contradicted by the circumstances of the stabbing, particularly the victim's vulnerable position and the suddenness of the assault. The method of concealing the knife under the cock's wing further supported the finding of treachery, as it was a deliberate act to ensure the success of the attack without risk to the assailant. The Court found that the mode of attack adopted by the appellant insured the accomplishment of his purpose without risk to himself. On the issue of voluntary surrender: The Supreme Court found that the accused-appellant was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Court gave weight and credence to the testimony of Agripino Lofranco, a barangay official, who positively testified that the appellant voluntarily surrendered to him on the same evening of the incident and turned over the weapon used. The trial court itself made a finding that Alfredo Cempron surrendered to Lofranco after the stabbing incident and delivered the weapon. This voluntary surrender, being an act of repentance and an effort to submit to the authorities, is a recognized mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code. The Court noted that the appellant went to the barangay official to seek help in surrendering to the police, demonstrating a clear intent to submit to justice. On the issue of the penalty: The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty imposed by the trial court was incorrect due to the failure to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. With the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty should be the minimum period of the penalty provided by law, which ranges from 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years. Furthermore, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies when the penalty imposed, after considering attending circumstances, is reclusion temporal or less. Applying this law, the minimum range of the indeterminate sentence is 10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months, and the maximum range is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years. The Court thus modified the penalty to be from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to eighteen (18) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and increased the indemnity to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The qualifying circumstance of treachery is appreciated when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution without any risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender must be considered in the imposition of the penalty, warranting the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.