People v. Avila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves the killing of Governor Gregorio P. Murillo of Surigao del Sur on October 23, 1985. The information filed charged Diosdado Avila, Agapito Agrabio, and Aurelio Silvoza with murder, alleging they conspired to shoot the Governor with treachery, evident premeditation, and intent to kill. The defense contended that the killing was committed in furtherance of rebellion. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, initially convicted Diosdado Avila and Agapito Agrabio of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting Aurelio Silvoza. However, the trial court subsequently issued an amended decision, dated August 1, 1988, finding Avila and Agrabio guilty of rebellion instead of murder. This amended decision was issued after the appellants had perfected their appeal from the initial murder conviction and after the records had been forwarded to the Supreme Court. The People objected to the amended decision, arguing the trial court had lost jurisdiction. The Petition: The appeal is from the trial court's initial decision dated July 12, 1988, convicting the appellants of murder. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the appellants were members of the New People's Army (NPA) liquidating squad and acted on orders to kill the Governor, deeming the act politically motivated and thus constituting rebellion, not murder. The Court applied Republic Act No. 6968 retroactively, which is more favorable to the appellants, imposing a penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period for rebellion. The Court also noted with concern the trial judge's attempt to amend the decision after jurisdiction had been lost.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court correctly amended its decision after an appeal had been perfected. Whether the killing of Governor Gregorio P. Murillo by the appellants constituted murder or rebellion, and if rebellion, what are the implications for damages. Which penal law and penalty should be applied considering the enactment of R.A. 6968 during the pendency of the appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision. It held that the trial court lost jurisdiction to amend its decision after the appeal was perfected, rendering the amended decision void. The Court found the appellants guilty of rebellion, not murder, and imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, applying R.A. 6968 retroactively. The award for damages was modified to an indemnity of P50,000.00 for the heirs of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the amended decision: The Court held that the trial court lost jurisdiction to amend its decision dated July 12, 1988, once the appeal was perfected by the appellants. Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court clearly states that a judgment of conviction may be modified or set aside by the court rendering it before the judgment has become final or appeal has been perfected. Therefore, the amended decision dated August 1, 1988, which was issued after the appeal was perfected and after the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court, had no legal force and effect. The appeal was thus directed against the original decision of July 12, 1988. On the classification of the crime and damages: The Court found merit in the appeal and ruled that the appellants committed the crime of rebellion, not murder. The evidence showed that appellants Avila and Agrabio were members of the liquidating squad of the New People's Army (NPA) and killed Governor Murillo upon orders from their senior officer, Commander Celo. The killing was politically motivated, stemming from the NPA's grievance regarding the Governor's alleged corruption and preferential treatment of the military. The Court reiterated the principle that killings committed in furtherance of rebellion or as part of the objectives of a rebellion are classified as rebellion, not murder, citing People vs. Manglallan. The trial court's reasoning that no uprising was ongoing was deemed insufficient to negate the nature of the act as rebellion. The Court modified the award of damages. While the trial court awarded various sums for tomb, expenses, life indemnity, actual damages, moral damages, and exemplary damages, the Supreme Court held that such damages are not proper in rebellion cases. The Court granted only an indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased Governor. On the applicable law and penalty: The Court determined that at the time of the commission of the crime (October 23, 1985), Presidential Decree No. 1834 was in effect, which imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for rebellion. However, Republic Act No. 6968 was enacted during the pendency of the appeal. Pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws favorable to the offender are given retroactive effect. R.A. 6968 imposes a penalty of reclusion temporal for those belonging to the "second group" of rebels (those who merely participate or execute commands), which the appellants fell under. Therefore, the Court applied R.A. 6968 retroactively, imposing the penalty of reclusion temporal. Since there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period, as per Article 64 of the RPC. The range for reclusion temporal in its medium period is from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
Main Doctrine
The killing of a government official by members of a rebel group, acting under orders from their superior, constitutes rebellion, not murder, especially when the act is politically motivated and in furtherance of the rebellion's objectives. Furthermore, penal laws that are favorable to the accused shall be given retroactive effect.