People v. Cheng
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Eleseo Cheng, along with co-accused Salvador Sioco and Alejandro Malubay, were charged with two counts of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 89-73804 and 89-73805. The Informations alleged that on February 21, 1989, in Manila, the accused conspired to kill Esperanza Viterbo and Yehia Abu Rawack Mohamad with treachery, evident premeditation, and superior strength. The victims sustained fatal gunshot wounds. An eyewitness, Emma Ruth Ilocso, testified that she saw accused-appellant Cheng and Sioco shoot Aburawash, and subsequently shoot Viterbo after luring her with the promise of being taken to a waiting cab. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Eleseo Cheng and Salvador Sioco of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Alejandro Malubay was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Cheng and Sioco filed motions for reconsideration. Cheng argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because he was an active member of the Integrated National Police (INP) on duty at the time of the offense, thus falling under court-martial jurisdiction. He also questioned the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. The RTC denied his motion. Cheng appealed. The Petition: Accused-appellant Eleseo Cheng appealed his conviction, primarily raising the issue of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, the sufficiency of evidence. He contended that as an INP member on duty, he should have been tried by a court-martial under Presidential Decree No. 1850. He claimed he was still appealing his dismissal from service when the Informations were filed.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant Eleseo Cheng, an alleged member of the Integrated National Police (INP) at the time of the commission of the offenses. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of accused-appellant Eleseo Cheng beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of murder, considering the credibility of the eyewitness. Whether conspiracy was adequately proven. Whether treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength were present as qualifying or aggravating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Eleseo Cheng for two counts of murder, with the modification of deleting the award of moral damages. The Court ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction over the accused-appellant, that conspiracy was established, and that treachery qualified the killings to murder. Evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were not appreciated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Jurisdiction: The Court held that while Presidential Decree No. 1850 generally vests exclusive jurisdiction over INP members in courts-martial, an exception exists when the accused is separated from active service without court-martial jurisdiction having duly attached beforehand. The Court found that accused-appellant Cheng was separated from service effective May 18, 1989, prior to the filing of the Informations on June 6, 1989. His claim that he received the dismissal order on June 7, 1989, and that his appeal was pending, was unsubstantiated by competent evidence. The burden of proving lack of jurisdiction rests on the accused, and mere allegations are insufficient. Therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction. On the Credibility of the Eyewitness and Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found the efforts to discredit the eyewitness, Emma Ruth Ilocso, to be futile. It reiterated that loose morals per se do not discredit a witness, and there must be clear indications against credibility. While minor inconsistencies in her statements were noted, they did not pertain to her positive identification of the accused-appellant and co-accused, whom she knew prior to the incident. The Court deferred to the trial court's assessment of her demeanor and credibility, as the judge had the opportunity to observe her directly. On Conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy was clearly established by the eyewitness testimony. The unity of purpose between accused-appellant Cheng and co-accused Sioco was evident from their actions: arguing with the victim Aburawash before shooting him, and then pursuing and shooting the victim Viterbo. There was no indication of any desistance from executing the acts necessary to perpetrate the crimes, thus demonstrating a common design. On Treachery, Evident Premeditation, and Abuse of Superior Strength: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that treachery attended the commission of the crimes, qualifying them as murder. Treachery requires the employment of means, methods, or forms that tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender arising from the defense the victim might make. The victims were attacked without opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate, and the manner of execution was deliberately adopted to ensure safety. This condition was met as the victims were shot without being able to defend themselves. The Court disagreed with the trial court's appreciation of evident premeditation, finding no evidence of a preconceived plan to kill the victims. The shooting might have been a spontaneous decision arising from a heated argument. The elements of evident premeditation—time of determination, overt acts indicating adherence to the determination, and sufficient lapse of time for reflection—were not proven. Furthermore, the Court ruled that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and thus, it should not have been appreciated separately.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction of civil courts over offenses committed by members of the Integrated National Police (INP) is determined by their status at the time of the filing of the Information, specifically whether they have been separated from active service without court-martial jurisdiction having duly attached beforehand. Mere allegations of appeal from dismissal orders are insufficient to divest civil courts of jurisdiction without competent proof.