People v. Cornejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of November 2, 1913, in Taal, Batangas, Zacarias Cabello was preparing a supper. Agaton Salazar was upstairs assisting in the preparation. Pedro Reyes and Eulalio Cornejo arrived and induced Salazar to come downstairs. Reyes, followed by Salazar, and then Cornejo, went to the south of the house. Without a word, Reyes struck Salazar on the head with a palma-brava club, followed by two more blows. While Salazar was falling, Cornejo struck him several blows in the face with a bolo. Both assailants then fled. Eyewitnesses provided uniform testimony. The victim sustained a severe head injury from the club, fracturing two bones in the frontal parietal region, and died six days later. He also had a wound on the cheek from a cutting instrument, another on his lips and incisor tooth, and bruises. Inocencio Aceron testified that on the morning of the incident, he saw Reyes sharpening a palma-brava club and Cornejo sharpening a bolo, and they stated they were going to kill a bachelor. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Batangas tried and convicted Eulalio Cornejo for murder, finding the crime attended by treachery and deliberate premeditation. The court sentenced him to seventeen years, four months, and one day of cadena temporal, accessory penalties, P1,000 indemnity, and costs, considering the extenuating circumstance of lack of education. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was murder. Whether treachery was present. Whether evident premeditation was present. Whether the defendant was a principal by direct participation. Whether the penalty imposed was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder, modifying the penalty to cadena perpetua. The judgment of the Court of First Instance was affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the crime committed and the presence of treachery: The Court affirmed the finding of murder, holding that treachery was present. Treachery exists when the attack is sudden and unexpected, not preceded by a dispute, and the victim is unable to prepare for defense, even if face to face with the assailant. The evidence showed that Reyes and Cornejo attacked Salazar in a manner he did not expect, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. The uniform testimony of eyewitnesses corroborated the sudden and unexpected nature of the assault. On the presence of evident premeditation: The Court also found that the aggravating circumstance of deliberate premeditation was properly considered. Premeditation is proven when the crime was planned, the means were prepared beforehand, and there was sufficient time for dispassionate consideration of the consequences. The testimony of Inocencio Aceron, stating that Reyes and Cornejo were sharpening their weapons on the morning of the incident with the stated intent to kill a bachelor, established the planning and preparation necessary for premeditation. This concerted plan to commit the crime was evident from the manner of the attack. On the defendant's participation as a principal: The Court held that the defendant was guilty as a principal. It clarified that when there is an agreement to cause the harm produced, all who participated in the pre-concerted crime are liable for the means each employed and the consequences thereof. In this case, there was an understanding between Reyes and Cornejo to commit the crime. Therefore, Cornejo was liable for the acts performed jointly, common, and simultaneously, even though one attacked with a club and the other with a bolo. The defendant's act of striking the victim with a bolo after Reyes had incapacitated him with the club demonstrated his direct participation in the commission of the crime. On the penalty imposed: The Court modified the penalty. While the trial court considered the extenuating circumstance of lack of education (Article 11 of the Penal Code), it also found two qualifying circumstances (treachery and premeditation). One of these, treachery, was held to be a generic aggravating circumstance. The Court reasoned that if the penalty was cadena temporal in its maximum degree to death, and a generic aggravating circumstance was present, the penalty should be raised to death. However, by compensating this aggravating circumstance with the extenuating circumstance of lack of education, the penalty should be applied in the medium degree, which is cadena perpetua. Thus, the sentence was modified from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua. On the indemnity and costs: The Court affirmed the award of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased and the imposition of costs, as these were consequential to the conviction for murder.
Main Doctrine
When there is an understanding or pre-concert to commit a crime, all participants are liable for the means employed by each and for the consequences thereof, even if their individual acts differ. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, when present with treachery, is considered a generic aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty. The extenuating circumstance of lack of education can be compensated by an aggravating circumstance, leading to the application of the penalty in its medium degree.