People v. Altabano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 31, 1994, at around 9:00 PM, in Kalookan City, Arnold Fernandez was drinking beer outside a store. Ruben Lascano, Eduardo Altabano, and Benjamin Caro approached Fernandez, cursed him, and proceeded to kick and maul him until he fell to the ground. Ruben Lascano uttered, "walanghiya ka, oras mo na." Corazon Caro-Altabano and Cynthia Caro-Altabano arrived and allegedly gave verbal encouragement to Ruben Lascano to shoot Fernandez. Ruben Lascano then shot Arnold Fernandez once in the left breast, after which all the accused left the scene. Bystanders attempted to bring Fernandez to the hospital, but he was already dead. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, found Eduardo Altabano y Ellorin and Benjamin Caro y Yu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with civil liabilities. The case against Ruben Lascano was still being tried due to his escape. Corazon Caro-Lascano and Cynthia Caro-Altabano were found not guilty of Murder and were acquitted. The Petition: Appellants Eduardo Altabano y Ellorin and Benjamin Caro y Yu appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court committed grave errors of law in convicting them of Murder allegedly in conspiracy with Ruben Lascano and in not acquitting them on grounds of reasonable doubt, similar to their co-accused Cynthia Altabano and Corazon Caro.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants Eduardo Altabano and Benjamin Caro of Murder. Whether conspiracy was sufficiently established among the accused. Whether treachery was present as a qualifying circumstance. Whether evident premeditation was present as a qualifying circumstance. Whether the defense of alibi should have prospered and whether the appellants should have been acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. Appellants Eduardo Altabano y Ellorin and Benjamin Caro y Yu were found guilty of Homicide, not Murder, and were sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years of prison mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The judgment appealed from was affirmed in all other respects, particularly the acquittal of Corazon Caro-Lascano and Cynthia Altabano y Caro.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction of appellants Eduardo Altabano and Benjamin Caro for Murder: The Supreme Court held that while conspiracy was established, treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently proven to qualify the killing to Murder. The Court found that the victim was aware of the hostility of the assailants and had an opportunity to observe the commencement of the assault, negating treachery. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the elements of evident premeditation, specifically the time the offenders determined to commit the crime and an act indicating they clung to their determination. Therefore, the conviction was modified to Homicide. On the establishment of conspiracy: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding of conspiracy among Ruben Lascano, Eduardo Altabano, and Benjamin Caro. The Court reasoned that their coordinated acts of ganging up on the victim, hitting and kicking him until he was helpless, demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. The fact that Benjamin Caro and Eduardo Altabano did not prevent Ruben Lascano from firing the fatal shot further supported the existence of conspiracy. The Court reiterated the doctrine that in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, making all conspirators liable as co-principals. On the presence of treachery: Treachery was not appreciated as a qualifying circumstance because there was no evidence showing a sudden attack without opportunity for the victim to defend himself. The victim, Arnold Fernandez, was aware of the assailants' hostility before the attack and was facing them, thus having the opportunity to observe the commencement of the assault. This negated the element of treachery, which requires that the attack be executed in a manner that deprives the victim of any chance to defend himself. On the presence of evident premeditation: The Supreme Court ruled that evident premeditation could not be appreciated against the appellants. While there was a motive (the victim's offensive remark towards Corazon Caro-Lascano) and a lapse of time between the argument and the killing, the prosecution failed to prove the first two elements of evident premeditation: the time the offender determined to commit the crime and an act indicating adherence to that determination. The trial court's inference of a pre-determined plan from the assailants' actions was deemed insufficient without direct and positive evidence of planning or preparation. On the defense of alibi and reasonable doubt: The defense of alibi was not given credence because the appellants failed to prove not only that they were at another place but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the locus criminis. The house where they claimed to be was only five to six houses away from the crime scene. Moreover, the alibi could not prevail over the positive identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to falsely testify and who recognized the appellants as their long-time neighbors. Therefore, the appellants were not acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy having been established, all conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation. However, treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently proven to qualify the killing to murder, thus the conviction was for homicide.