People v. Alcartado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Virgilio Alcartado testified that he witnessed his cousin, accused-appellant Carlito Alcartado, stab his live-in partner, Digna Guillermo, several times inside Virgilio's house. The accused-appellant and the victim were common-law spouses with six children. The accused-appellant had attempted to persuade the victim's mother to sell her property to raise funds to bail out his son from detention. The victim's mother refused, and the accused-appellant left for Danglas, Abra. The victim and their children followed and stayed with Virgilio. In the early morning of February 16, 1993, Virgilio was awakened by the victim's cries for help and saw the accused-appellant stabbing the victim with a bolo. Virgilio intervened but was unable to stop the assault until the accused-appellant ceased. Police arrived, arrested the accused-appellant, and the victim was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region (Branch 2, Bangued, Abra) convicted the accused-appellant of murder, qualifying the crime by treachery and appreciating evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength as aggravating circumstances. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision, assailing the credibility of the sole eyewitness, Virgilio Alcartado, and arguing that the prosecution suppressed evidence by not presenting the victim's children who also witnessed the event. The People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, agreed that the conviction for murder was erroneous, arguing that treachery and evident premeditation were not proven.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of murder and whether treachery can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Whether evident premeditation can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Whether abuse of superior strength can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Whether the credibility of the sole eyewitness, Virgilio Alcartado, is sufficient for conviction. Whether the failure to present other eyewitnesses constitutes suppression of evidence. On the penalty and indemnity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. Accused-appellant Carlito Alcartado was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, aggravated by abuse of superior strength, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of murder conviction and treachery: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The lone eyewitness, Virgilio Alcartado, testified that he was awakened by the victim's cries for help and only saw the accused-appellant in the act of stabbing the victim. The manner in which the assault began and developed was not established. The Court reiterated the rule that treachery cannot be presumed but must be proven positively. Where the particulars of the attack are unknown, it cannot be established that the killing was perpetrated by treachery. Therefore, in the absence of proof of treachery, the accused-appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the crime should be considered homicide. On the issue of evident premeditation: The Supreme Court also disagreed with the trial court's appreciation of evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance. The fact that the accused-appellant was unable to secure a loan from the victim's parents was not sufficient, standing alone, to establish evident premeditation. The Court emphasized that evident premeditation must be clearly proven, established beyond reasonable doubt, and based on external acts indicating deliberate planning, not mere suspicion. The circumstances presented did not demonstrate a cold and calculated plan to kill the victim. On the issue of abuse of superior strength: The Supreme Court found that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was proven during the trial. Virgilio Alcartado witnessed the accused-appellant on top of the victim, repeatedly stabbing her with a bolo. The Court cited People vs. Guzman which held that an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superiority. Although not alleged in the information, abuse of superior strength could be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Since it was not absorbed by treachery (which was not proven) and there were no mitigating circumstances, it warranted the imposition of the penalty for homicide in its maximum period. On the credibility of the eyewitness and suppression of evidence: The Supreme Court found no reason to discredit the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Virgilio Alcartado. The trial judge, who personally observed the witness's demeanor, gave full faith and credence to his account. The alleged motive for Virgilio to falsely testify (related to GSIS pension) was deemed insufficient to overcome the gravity of the crime charged. The Court also found the witness's nervousness at the scene to be a natural reaction, bolstering his credibility. Furthermore, the Court held that the failure to present the victim's children, who were also eyewitnesses, did not constitute suppression of evidence. Their testimony would have been merely corroborative, and the presumption of suppression of evidence does not apply when the evidence is equally available to both parties and is merely corroborative or cumulative. If the defense believed their testimony would be favorable, they could have presented them. No corresponding ratio provided in the source text. On the penalty and indemnity: Based on the conviction for homicide aggravated by abuse of superior strength, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in accordance with Article 64, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused-appellant was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00.
Main Doctrine
While the trial court found the accused guilty of murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, the Supreme Court modified the conviction to homicide aggravated by abuse of superior strength. Treachery was not appreciated as the manner of attack was not proven, and evident premeditation was not established. Abuse of superior strength, though not alleged, was proven and considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.