People v. Sioc, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 13, 1983, Exequiel Cinco was with accused Fortunato Sioc, Jr. and Pablo Gonzales, drinking tuba in Veneranda Marcelo's house. After leaving, Exequiel was followed by the two accused. Barbara Aguindo, searching for her brother Exequiel, heard Pablo Gonzales say, "Exequiel, you are going to die." She then saw Sioc, Jr. and Gonzales stabbing Exequiel in the back. Fearing for her life, Barbara returned home and later reported the incident. An autopsy revealed five stab wounds, four on the back, caused by a sharp bladed instrument, leading to death by hemorrhage. Procedural History: The Information indicted Sioc, Jr. and Gonzales for murder. Gonzales pleaded guilty to homicide and was convicted of the lesser offense, with his appeal withdrawn. Sioc, Jr. pleaded not guilty to murder. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sioc, Jr. of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Petition: Accused-appellant Fortunato Sioc, Jr. appealed his conviction for murder, arguing that the trial court erred in giving full weight to the prosecution's testimonies and in not finding his guilt unproven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and whether the guilt of accused Fortunato Sioc, Jr. was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether treachery was attendant in the commission of the crime. On the classification of the crime and penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision. Accused-appellant Fortunato Sioc, Jr. was found guilty of homicide, not murder, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He was ordered to indemnify the heirs of Exequiel Cinco in the amount of P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses and proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found the arguments against the credibility of prosecution witnesses Barbara Aguindo and Venerada Marcelo to be without sustainable basis. The alleged inconsistencies were deemed minor and did not adversely affect their credibility. Barbara's reaction of going home out of fear, rather than intervening, was considered a natural response given the circumstances of being confronted by two armed men at past 2:00 AM. Her delay in reporting was explained by her fear for her own life. The Court also found unconvincing the accused-appellant's testimony that Barbara attempted to bribe him to testify, especially since Pablo Gonzales had already surrendered and confessed guilt. The defense of alibi was unavailing as the accused-appellant failed to convincingly show that his presence at the locus criminis was physically impossible, and it could not prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses. On the presence of treachery: The Court held that treachery was not sufficiently proven. For treachery to qualify the crime to murder, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender. Barbara Aguindo, the lone eyewitness, did not see how the attack commenced; she only saw the accused stabbing the victim when he was already fallen. The stab wounds on the victim's back were the sole basis of the trial court's appreciation of treachery, but this alone was insufficient without evidence that the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to deprive the victim of any chance to defend himself. Therefore, treachery could not be appreciated. On the classification of the crime and penalty: Absent the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed was homicide, penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period was the prescribed penalty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The indemnity ex delicto was increased to P50,000.00 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide, holding that treachery was not sufficiently proven as the eyewitness did not see the commencement of the attack. Alibi was unavailing against positive identification. The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.