People v. Cortes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Cristituto Cortes and Ariel Cortes were charged with murder for the killing of Juanita Perez. The prosecution alleged that on September 6, 1992, in Mandaue City, the accused, conspiring and confederating, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation, attacked and stabbed Juanita Perez, causing his death. The victim was drinking beer with friends when he went to relieve himself, at which point Ariel Cortes allegedly stabbed him from behind. Cristituto Cortes then allegedly pursued and boxed the victim as he attempted to flee, causing him to fall. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. Ariel Cortes's offer to plead guilty to homicide was rejected. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 28, Mandaue City, convicted both appellants of murder. Cristituto Cortes was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and Ariel Cortes received an indeterminate penalty, taking into account his voluntary surrender. Both were ordered to pay civil damages. The appellants then filed an appeal to this Court. The Petition: The appellants, Cristituto Cortes and Ariel Cortes, seek review of the trial court's decision, arguing that the court erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative in favor of Ariel Cortes. They also contend that the trial court erred in finding that they conspired to kill the victim and in concluding that they were guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The petition challenges the findings of conspiracy and treachery, asserting that the evidence does not support these conclusions and that their actions were in defense of a relative.
Issue(s)
Whether the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative should have been appreciated in favor of accused-appellant Ariel Cortes. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused-appellants conspired to kill the victim. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of defense of a relative: The Court held that the plea for exoneration on the ground of defense of a relative failed because the appellants did not prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. For this justifying circumstance to succeed, unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and the defender's lack of participation in provocation must be proven. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Roel Flores and Servillano Remolizan directly contradicted the appellants' claim of unlawful aggression, stating that Ariel stabbed Juanito without provocation. Furthermore, the appellants' own testimonies were inconsistent, with Ariel giving conflicting accounts of the incident in his police statement and during trial. Cristituto's medical certificate also did not fully support his claims of injury. Therefore, the failure to establish unlawful aggression was fatal to their defense. On the issue of conspiracy: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of conspiracy, citing Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of agreement is not necessary; it can be inferred from the acts of the accused that manifest a concurrence of wills and a common intent or design. In this case, the overheard conversation between Ariel and Cristituto, where they planned to stab Juanito and anyone who came to his aid, coupled with their coordinated actions in attacking and pursuing the victim, clearly demonstrated a unity of mind and a common purpose to kill Juanito Perez. Their acts, though seemingly independent, were cooperative and indicated a shared design. On the issue of conviction for murder: The Court upheld the conviction for murder, finding that the killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is present when the offender employs means or methods that tend directly and especially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. This occurs when the attack is unexpected and renders the victim unable to defend himself. In this case, Ariel Cortes attacked Juanito Perez from behind while the victim was urinating, without provocation or warning. This sudden, deliberate, and unexpected assault deprived the unarmed and unsuspecting victim of any chance to defend himself. Cristituto's subsequent action of boxing the fleeing victim further ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellants. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was established, making the crime murder.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, holding that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the concurrence of wills and common intent inferred from the appellants' coordinated actions and prior statements. Treachery was found to be present due to the unexpected and unprovoked nature of the attack, which deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. The defense of a relative was rejected for failure to establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.