People v. Landicho
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On January 8, 1991, four members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) – M/Sgt. Reynaldo Landicho, Pat. Johnny Bunyi, C1C Eric Manlusoc, and C2C Leovino Canuel – allegedly shot and killed Isagani Mazon in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. Mazon sustained twenty-one gunshot wounds, some to his back. The accused were charged with murder. 2. Procedural History: The accused were initially charged with murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. They were granted detention at the PNP Stockade instead of the provincial jail. During their detention, the accused allegedly escaped, though only Manlusoc was initially re-arrested. The trial court denied their petition for bail and later, after the prosecution rested its case, considered the defense to have waived its right to present evidence due to the accused's continued absence and escape. The RTC subsequently found all accused guilty of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Manlusoc appealed his conviction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari but partially granted the supplemental petition for Manlusoc, ordering the trial court to give due course to his appeal. This Court denied a subsequent petition for review filed by the accused. Manlusoc's appeal was then accepted by this Court. 3. The Petition: The accused, through their counsel, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and a writ of preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals, questioning the trial court's jurisdiction. This petition was later supplemented. The accused argued that the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, had jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers. The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition but ordered the trial court to give due course to Manlusoc's appeal. This Court denied a further petition for review. The present appeal by Manlusoc raises seventeen assignments of error, including claims that the judgment lacked sufficient findings of fact, that there was insufficient proof of the elements of murder, that the medico-legal officer failed to testify, that treachery was not proven, that conspiracy was not established, and that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and unbelievable. The Solicitor General recommended conviction for homicide instead of murder, arguing treachery was not proven.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of murder despite alleged lack of proof of essential elements, and the credibility of witnesses. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. Whether the aggravating circumstance of 'band' was correctly appreciated, and whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly considered. Whether the accused's escape from detention indicated guilt. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case. Whether conspiracy was present. Whether the number and location of wounds were sufficient to prove a deliberate intent to kill.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Eric Manlusoc for murder, sentencing him and his co-accused to reclusion perpetua. The Court also ordered them to jointly and severally pay P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim. The Court admonished the trial judge, directed administrative proceedings against PNP Superintendent Jaime L. Lasar, required the Provincial Jail Warden to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, and directed Atty. Renato dela Cruz to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged lack of proof of essential elements and the credibility of witnesses: The Court found no merit in the claim that the medico-legal officer failed to testify. The parties stipulated on Dr. Alberto's testimony, and the defense waived cross-examination due to the accused's escape. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Lilian Francisco and Herman Mejico, Jr. to be credible. The alleged inconsistencies were either clarified or were minor discrepancies that did not affect the material points of their testimonies. The fact that Francisco admitted to being a 'procurer' or 'pimp' enhanced her credibility as it was given openly after being informed of her rights. The Court also noted that consistency in essential facts, not inconsistency, is a mark of credibility. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery: The Court held that treachery was present. Two conditions must concur: the attack must deprive the victim of an opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and this mode of attack must be deliberately adopted. Despite the victim possibly expecting trouble, the attack was sudden and unexpected. The victim was unarmed, and the accused, armed with firearms, peppered him with bullets, including one to the head from behind. The severity and number of wounds indicated a calculated decision to kill, thus establishing treachery. On the aggravating circumstances of 'band' and abuse of superior strength: The Court affirmed the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of 'band' because the four accused, armed with guns, acted together in the killing. However, the Court ruled that the trial court erred in appreciating abuse of superior strength as an independent aggravating circumstance, stating that treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. On the escape of the accused: The Court held that the escape of the accused from detention was indicative of guilt and constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The escape was confirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated the doctrine that flight is an indication of a guilty mind. The trial court's conduct in handling the escape and subsequent proceedings was criticized for leniency and procedural lapses. On the trial court's jurisdiction: The Court implicitly affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction by proceeding to rule on the merits of the appeal, and the Court of Appeals had previously dismissed the petition questioning jurisdiction. The accused's motion to quash the warrant of arrest based on the Court of Appeals giving due course to their petition was denied as premature. On conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy was present, even though not explicitly mentioned by the trial court. The accused's synchronous presence at the crime scene, their belonging to the same intelligence team searching for Mazon, their concerted attack on the victim, and their coordinated escape all evinced a joint purpose and design. The act of one conspirator is the act of all, meaning it did not matter if Manlusoc did not fire the fatal shot, as all were equally responsible for the killing. On the alleged lack of treachery due to lack of evidence of prior determination: The Court disagreed with the OSG's contention that treachery was absent due to lack of evidence of prior determination, stating that the number and location of wounds were sufficient to prove a deliberate intent to kill.
Main Doctrine
The escape of the accused during the pendency of the trial is indicative of guilt and constitutes a waiver of their right to present evidence. Treachery absorbs the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The act of one conspirator is the act of all.