People v. Nacional
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Walter Nacional, Absalon Millamina, Efren Musa, Rudy Luces, Javier Mirabete, and Zacarias Militante were charged with murder in two separate informations for the killing of Quirino Lagason and Joel Lagason on February 21, 1985, in Brgy. Salvacion, Daraga, Albay. The prosecution alleged that the accused, as members of the CPP-NPA, identified the victims as military informers and targeted them for liquidation. A few days prior, a meeting (pulong-pulong) was held where the plan to kill the Lagasons was discussed. On February 21, 1985, the group gathered again, received instructions to confront and kill the Lagasons if they resisted, and proceeded to the victims' house. Walter Nacional shot Quirino Lagason, and Absalon Millamina shot Joel Lagason. Procedural History: All accused pleaded not guilty. The cases were consolidated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Legazpi City, found Walter Nacional, Efren Musa, Rudy Luces, Javier Mirabete, and Zacarias Militante guilty of two counts of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victims. All five appealed. The Petition: Walter Nacional, Zacarias Militante, and Efren Musa withdrew their appeal, claiming their charges were political in nature and they had applied for conditional pardon. Rudy Luces also withdrew his appeal, having been granted conditional pardon. Only Javier Mirabete pursued his appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether accused-appellant Javier Mirabete was correctly identified as a member of the conspiracy to kill the Lagasons. Whether evident premeditation and conspiracy were sufficiently established. Whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength could be appreciated. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. Whether the grant of conditional pardon to co-accused extinguished their civil indemnity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC regarding the criminal liability of accused-appellant Javier Mirabete and the civil liability of all the accused. The appeals of Walter Nacional, Zacarias Militante, Efren Musa, and Rudy Luces were dismissed due to their withdrawal and acceptance of conditional pardon.
Ratio Decidendi
On the identification of Javier Mirabete: The Court found that Javier Mirabete was sufficiently identified as part of the conspiracy. His identification was corroborated by multiple witnesses, including prosecution witnesses Elevino Rincopan (former CPP-NPA team leader), Genita Miranda (store owner), and co-accused Walter Nacional. Crisanto Miranda, an eyewitness, also identified Mirabete as part of the group that approached him for directions. The Court dismissed Mirabete's defense of being merely a spectator at a volleyball game, noting the consistent testimonies against him. On evident premeditation and conspiracy: The Court held that evident premeditation was clearly established. The plan to kill the Lagasons was conceived a few days prior at a pulong-pulong, discussed again at a meeting on February 21, 1985, where roles were assigned and weapons prepared. The group then deliberately searched for and killed the victims. Conspiracy was also established from the moment the plotters agreed to commit the felony and pursued it. The unity of purpose, intention, and design was evident from their coordinated actions, including those left at the waiting shed to provide security. On abuse of superior strength: The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength could not be appreciated. Mere superiority in number does not automatically prove abuse of superior strength. On the penalty: The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua. No mitigating circumstances were found, and the analogous circumstance of age over 70 was not applicable as Mirabete was only 59 at the time of the offense. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was also not appreciated. On civil indemnity and conditional pardon: The Court clarified that a conditional pardon does not extinguish civil liability. Therefore, the co-accused who received conditional pardon remained liable for the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each victim, which must be shared solidarily by all accused.
Main Doctrine
A conspiracy, once established, makes each of the conspirators liable for the acts of the others, regardless of the extent of their participation, as the act of one is the act of all. Furthermore, a conditional pardon does not extinguish civil liability arising from the crime.