People v. Abordo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case stemmed from an information for Murder against Felipe Abordo, Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo, and Aniceto Jalandoni for the killing of Porferio Lubiano on June 19, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the accused, conspiring and confederating, with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked Lubiano with pieces of wood and stones, inflicting injuries that caused his death. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum, Davao, found all four accused guilty of Murder and sentenced them to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in solidum for P30,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but increased the death indemnity to P50,000.00 and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo, and Aniceto Jalandoni, certifying the case to the Supreme Court for review. The Petition: The accused appealed, arguing that only Felipe Abordo was guilty based on his voluntary admission, and that Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo, and Aniceto Jalandoni should be acquitted due to insufficient evidence and the presumption of innocence. Felipe Abordo also sought to have two mitigating circumstances, voluntary surrender and incomplete self-defense, credited to him.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the conspiracy and the culpability of all four accused for the crime of Murder. Whether the eyewitness testimony of Hermogenes Pan was credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction. Whether the defenses of alibi and denial interposed by Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo, and Aniceto Jalandoni were valid. Whether Felipe Abordo is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Whether Felipe Abordo is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. Whether evident premeditation was sufficiently proven and whether abuse of superior strength was present and if it was absorbed by treachery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding all four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The respective penalties imposed on each appellant were also affirmed. The death indemnity was confirmed at P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conspiracy and culpability of all four accused: The Court held that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the concerted actions of the appellants before, during, and after the commission of the crime. Daniel Abordo and Ricardo Arebalo held the victim's arms, Aniceto Jalandoni struck him with a piece of wood, and Felipe Abordo crushed his head with a stone. These acts, performed with close coordination, indicated a common criminal design. The Court reiterated that conspirators are liable as co-principals, and the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the extent of individual participation. Felipe Abordo's admission of guilt did not automatically exonerate his co-accused, whose culpability must be determined based on their individual participation and the evidence presented. On the credibility of the eyewitness testimony: The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Hermogenes Pan to be credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction. Pan's testimony was direct, succinct, and impressed the trial court. His observations during the conciliation proceedings, where Aniceto Jalandoni exhibited anger and attempted to pull the victim away, led him to secretly follow the group. His detailed account of the attack at Gaga Creek, corroborated by other witnesses like Jose Pan and Dionisio Plasabas, further bolstered its credibility. The Court dismissed Aniceto Jalandoni's attempt to discredit Pan by alleging improper motive, finding no other witness to support this claim and deeming it insufficient to overcome Pan's otherwise credible narration. On the defenses of alibi and denial: The Court rejected the defenses of alibi and denial interposed by Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo, and Aniceto Jalandoni. The Court noted that alibi is a weak defense, easily concocted, and requires proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. The distances between the places where the appellants claimed to be and the crime scene were found to be not so distant as to exclude their presence. Furthermore, the alibi was primarily testified to by Ciriaco Abordo, a relative, and lacked corroboration from credible, disinterested witnesses, rendering it self-serving and unconvincing. On the mitigating circumstances for Felipe Abordo (Voluntary Surrender): The Court agreed with the lower courts that Felipe Abordo was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as he surrendered to a barangay councilman immediately after the incident. On the mitigating circumstances for Felipe Abordo (Incomplete Self-Defense): The Court denied the claim for incomplete self-defense, finding no basis for it in light of the established facts and the findings of the lower courts that the attack was treacherous and the victim was defenseless. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery: The Court affirmed the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The attack was sudden and unexpected upon an unsuspecting victim who was rendered defenseless by his arms being held by two of the appellants. This manner of execution ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the offenders, directly tending to insure its execution without risk from the victim's defense. On evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength: The Court found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven by the prosecution, and thus, it was not appreciated. Regarding abuse of superior strength, the Court held that this aggravating circumstance was already absorbed by treachery, given the manner in which the crime was executed with the victim being defenseless and outnumbered. The Court also addressed the penalties and indemnity, upholding the imposition of reclusion perpetua on Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo, and Aniceto Jalandoni, who had no mitigating circumstances. For Felipe Abordo, the penalty of 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal was affirmed, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The indemnity to the heirs was correctly increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since, in point of law, the act of one would be the act of all. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present when the victim's arms were held, preventing defense or escape, and the attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders.