People v. Sarense
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 22, 1988, at approximately 3:00 PM, in Sitio Jumao-as, Barangay Malongcay Diot, Zamboanguita, Negros Occidental, Apolinario alias "Dodoy" Sarense and Wilfredo alias "Willy" Sarense, father and son, were charged with murder for allegedly conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each other to kill Antonio Cafino with evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength, using bolos. The victim sustained multiple hacked wounds, causing his immediate death. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Apolinario Sarense. Apolinario was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum. Wilfredo was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Antonio Cafino in the amount of P30,000.00. The bolo of Apolinario was ordered confiscated, and the victim's air gun was ordered returned to his heirs. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the decision of the RTC. Apolinario Sarense claimed self-defense, while Wilfredo Sarense denied participation in the killing.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellants are guilty of murder. Whether Apolinario Sarense acted in self-defense. Whether Wilfredo Sarense participated in the killing. Whether evident premeditation and treachery were present as qualifying circumstances. Whether abuse of superior strength was present as a qualifying circumstance. Whether conspiracy was established.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications to the penalty imposed on Apolinario Sarense and increased the death indemnity. Apolinario Sarense was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum as minimum to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum as minimum. Wilfredo Sarense was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The death indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 to be paid jointly and severally by the accused-appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellants for murder: The Court found that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, as two armed individuals simultaneously attacked the victim with bolos, inflicting numerous fatal wounds and leaving the victim no chance to defend himself. Conspiracy was also established through their concerted acts of hacking the victim with common intent to kill. The Court rejected the claims of self-defense and denial of participation. On Apolinario Sarense's claim of self-defense: The Court found Apolinario's claim of self-defense to be unbelievable and incredible. His account of the incident, where the victim allegedly fired an air gun multiple times without hitting him and then engaged in a duel where Apolinario, while on the ground, managed to inflict fatal wounds, was inconsistent with the number and severity of the wounds on the deceased. The evidence, particularly the autopsy report showing multiple fatal wounds, indicated aggression on the part of the accused, not self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, unlawful aggression must be positively shown, which was not established here. On Wilfredo Sarense's participation: The Court found Wilfredo Sarense's denial of participation to be uncorroborated and insufficient to overcome the positive testimonies of eyewitnesses Pablo Partosa and Jacinto Cafino, who categorically declared seeing Wilfredo hack the victim. The concerted acts of both accused in hacking the victim supported their conspiracy and equal liability. On evident premeditation and treachery: The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish evident premeditation, as there was no proof that the accused planned to assault and kill the victim beforehand. While treachery was suggested by the hacking of the victim at the back, the Court noted that this occurred after the initial hacking by Apolinario and involved movement and changes in position, thus not clearly demonstrating that the act was adopted to insure its execution without risk to the assailant. Qualifying circumstances must be proven as convincingly as the crime itself. On abuse of superior strength: The Court found that the circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present. The fact that two accused, both armed with bolos, simultaneously attacked the victim, inflicting nine wounds, five of which were fatal, clearly demonstrated the use of superior strength to ensure the commission of the crime and prevent any retaliation from the victim. The disparity in injuries sustained by the accused compared to the victim further supported this finding. On conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy was convincingly proven. The concerted acts of the two accused in simultaneously hacking their victim with bolos, hitting vital parts of the body, with a common object and purpose of killing him, demonstrated their unity of purpose and action. Apolinario Sarense's motive, believing the deceased caused his family's displacement, further supported the common purpose.
Main Doctrine
The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was established by the fact that two accused, armed with bolos, simultaneously hacked the victim, inflicting multiple fatal wounds and affording the victim no chance to fight back. Conspiracy was proven by their concerted acts in hacking the victim with common object and purpose. Self-defense was not proven due to the number and location of wounds on the deceased, indicating aggression rather than defense.