People v. Listerio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Agapito Listerio y Prado and Samson dela Torre y Esquela, along with several others, were charged with Murder and Frustrated Murder for the assault on brothers Jeonito Araque and Marlon Araque. The Amended Information for Murder alleged conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength in the killing of Jeonito Araque with bladed weapons and lead pipes. The Amended Information for Frustrated Homicide alleged similar circumstances in the stabbing and hitting of Marlon Araque with bladed weapons and lead pipes, which would have caused his death but for timely medical attendance. Procedural History: Accused Agapito Listerio y Prado and Samson dela Torre y Esquela pleaded not guilty. Samson dela Torre escaped during trial. The trial court rendered judgment only against Agapito Listerio, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the death of Jeonito Araque (Murder) and for the attempt to kill Marlon Araque (Attempted Homicide). The court imposed penalties and awarded damages. Accused-appellant Agapito Listerio appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that he was convicted of Murder and Attempted Homicide despite the absence of proof of conspiracy and the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and whether conspiracy was proven. Whether treachery and abuse of superior strength were proven for the crimes of Murder and Attempted Homicide, and whether evident premeditation was established. Whether the crime committed against Marlon Araque was Frustrated Homicide or Attempted Homicide. Whether the awarded damages were proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder in Criminal Case No. 91-5842. In Criminal Case No. 91-5843, the Court found the accused-appellant guilty of Frustrated Homicide, modifying the trial court's conviction for Attempted Homicide. The Court also modified the awards for damages. The case was remanded for judgment against Samson dela Torre.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence and conspiracy: The Court held that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient for conviction. Marlon Araque's eyewitness account was found to be categorical, convincing, and straightforward. Conspiracy was inferred from the collective acts of the accused and their companions, who blocked the victims' path and attacked them as a group with weapons, indicating a common criminal design. The Court emphasized that direct proof of conspiracy is not necessary and it may be deduced from circumstantial evidence, such as the mode and manner of the commission of the offense. The Court rejected the accused-appellant's defense of alibi, stating that it is generally viewed with suspicion and requires proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. The accused-appellant's alibi was found to be weak and easily fabricated, especially since his house was only 100 meters away from the crime scene, making his physical presence at the scene possible. On the presence of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation: The Court found treachery to be present, noting the sudden and unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victims, effectively cutting off their escape. The deceased was stabbed from behind, and Marlon Araque was attacked with both bladed weapons and lead pipes. The Court explained that treachery is present when the offender employs means that tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. The treacherous manner of the attack, with assailants positioned behind the victim and using weapons disproportionate to the victims' defense, qualified the crime to murder. The Court noted that abuse of superior strength was present due to the numerical superiority of the accused and their companions and the use of weapons. However, it held that this aggravating circumstance is absorbed in treachery when treachery is present. The Court found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven. It stated that for evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be concrete proof of how and when the plan to kill was hatched and the time elapsed before its execution. In the absence of such proof, it is not necessary to appreciate evident premeditation when conspiracy is already established. On the classification of the crime against Marlon Araque: The Court clarified the distinction between frustrated and attempted felonies. It explained that a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all acts of execution which would produce the felony, but it is not produced due to causes independent of the offender's will. An attempted felony occurs when the offender commits overt acts to commence the crime but is prevented from performing all acts of execution by causes other than spontaneous desistance. The Court found that the subjective phase of the crime against Marlon Araque had been passed, as the offenders performed all acts of execution (stabbing and hitting with a lead pipe) which would have resulted in homicide, but death was prevented by medical intervention. Therefore, the crime was frustrated homicide, not attempted homicide as ruled by the trial court. On damages: The Court affirmed the awards for actual damages for both victims, civil indemnity ex delicto for Jeonito's death, and moral and exemplary damages for Jeonito's heirs, citing current jurisprudence and the presence of an aggravating circumstance. However, the award of P5,000.00 for moral damages to Marlon Araque was deleted for lack of testimonial proof of his moral suffering. The Court also noted that the trial court correctly ignored the claim for loss of income due to lack of competent evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for Murder and modified the conviction for Frustrated Homicide to Attempted Homicide, emphasizing that conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and that treachery was present. The Court also clarified the distinction between frustrated and attempted felonies based on the subjective phase of the commission of the crime.