People v. Buluran
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 16, 1993, during a fiesta celebration, an altercation occurred between Dominador Meyer, Jr., and a cousin. The victim, Edilberto Meyer, Sr., intervened to pacify them. Reynaldo Danao approached and warned them against making trouble. The victim denied causing trouble, stating it was a family matter. Reynaldo Danao then boxed the victim, who retaliated. After exchanging blows, Reynaldo Danao fled but returned approximately two minutes later, accompanied by Cielito Buluran, Leonardo Valenzuela, and Jaime Danao. Reynaldo Danao was armed with a knife, Cielito Buluran also had a knife, and Leonardo Valenzuela and Jaime Danao carried slingshots with sharp-pointed nails. Reynaldo Danao stabbed the victim in the back. Buluran and Valenzuela brandished their weapons to prevent interference, with Buluran guarding the victim and Valenzuela pointing his slingshot at the Meyer brothers and others. The four then fled, and the victim died that night. Procedural History: An Information for murder was filed against Cielito Buluran and three John Does. The Information was later amended to include Leonardo Valenzuela. Both accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses, a police officer, and the medico-legal officer. The defense claimed the appellants were asleep during the incident and presented witnesses to support this alibi. The defense also presented a doctor who treated Reynaldo Danao for stab wounds two days after the incident. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, convicted both appellants of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity and actual damages. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the RTC decision, assigning errors related to the alleged violation of their constitutional rights during custodial investigation and the lack of preliminary investigation, arguing these procedural defects divested the court of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellants are estopped from questioning the validity of their arrests and the lack of preliminary investigation. Whether the appellants' constitutional rights were violated during custodial investigation. Whether treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing. Whether abuse of superior strength can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Whether the appellants are guilty of murder or homicide.
Ruling
The appealed decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants are found guilty of Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. They are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased P50,000.00 as indemnity, P8,000.00 as actual damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issues (arrest and preliminary investigation): The Supreme Court held that appellants are estopped from questioning the validity of their arrests and the lack of preliminary investigation because these issues were not raised before arraignment. The Court reiterated that objections regarding arrest or jurisdiction must be made before entering a plea, otherwise, they are deemed waived. On the procedural issue (custodial investigation): The Court found no violation of constitutional rights because no extrajudicial confession or admission was used as the basis for conviction. The conviction was based on eyewitness testimonies, and the appellants did not attempt to impeach these testimonies. The Court clarified that any allegation of rights violation during custodial investigation is relevant only when such admissions or confessions are used against the accused. The Court also emphasized that a waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be in writing and in the presence of counsel, as mandated by the Constitution and R.A. 7438. On the qualifying circumstances (treachery and evident premeditation): The Court ruled that treachery could not be appreciated because the killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel, which would have put the victim on guard. The Court also found that evident premeditation was not proven clearly and convincingly, as the attack occurred only about two minutes after the initial altercation, which did not provide sufficient time for reflection. On the aggravating circumstance (abuse of superior strength): The Court found that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing, as the appellants and their companions gathered and armed themselves to take advantage of their combined strength to ensure the victim's death without interference. Since abuse of superior strength was not alleged in the Information, it could only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. On the crime committed, penalty, and damages: Absent any qualifying circumstances, the Court concluded that the appellants should be held liable for homicide, not murder. The Court noted that the trial court erred in convicting them of murder. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, considering the presence of one aggravating circumstance (abuse of superior strength), the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court affirmed the P50,000.00 death indemnity and the P8,000.00 actual damages, as the latter was supported by a receipt. Additionally, due to the presence of one aggravating circumstance, the Court awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00, pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
The failure to accord appellants their right to preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the information nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court, as the right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. Similarly, appellants are estopped from questioning the validity of their respective arrests since this issue was not raised before arraignment. Allegations of violation of rights during custodial investigation are relevant only if an extrajudicial admission or confession is used as basis for conviction; here, conviction was based on eyewitness testimonies.