People v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 19, 1996, Edgardo Aquino y Pumawan (Edgardo) went to the house of Valerio and Esmeralda Lampera looking for Valerio. Upon being told Valerio was not home, Edgardo, who was near the door, peeped inside. When he did not see Valerio, he pulled out a knife and initially attempted to stab the younger son, Daniel. Roselyn and her mother, Esmeralda, rushed to protect Daniel. Edgardo then entered the house and attempted to stab Roselyn, but her mother intervened. Edgardo then repeatedly stabbed Esmeralda in the stomach and chest areas. Roselyn escaped by breaking through the nipa wall. Benjamin Costimiano, a purok leader, heard the commotion, went to the scene, and was told that Edgardo was the culprit. Costimiano apprehended Edgardo, who was still armed with a knife, and Edgardo voluntarily surrendered the weapon, which had blood on its handle. Dr. Nancy Valdez conducted an autopsy and found four stab wounds, two of which were fatal. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 75, Olongapo City, convicted Edgardo of murder, finding the killing to be attended by treachery. The RTC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of intoxication and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, but held that the mitigating circumstance was offset by the aggravating circumstance. Edgardo was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Petition: Edgardo appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in considering treachery, convicting him of murder, and overlooking material facts. He claimed no treachery was proved, as the victim was forewarned and the attack was frontal. He also argued that the means of execution was not deliberately adopted and that he had no prior preparation. He further claimed denial of constitutional rights during his arrest and custodial interrogation.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Esmeralda Lampera was qualified by treachery. Whether Edgardo Aquino was guilty of murder or homicide. Whether the mitigating circumstance of intoxication was present and applicable. Whether the defense of temporary insanity was valid. Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly considered. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present. Whether Edgardo Aquino was denied his constitutional rights.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the RTC. It found Edgardo Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, not murder. The Court sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The awards for indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of treachery and conviction for murder: The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of treachery. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, two requisites must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. In this case, the victim, Esmeralda, was forewarned of the impending attack because Edgardo had previously attempted to stab her son and daughter. Therefore, she was not in a position where she could not defend herself, as she had already intervened to protect her children. Furthermore, the Court found no sufficient evidence that Edgardo deliberately and consciously adopted the means of execution; the killing appeared to be impulsive or done on the spur of the moment. Consequently, the crime was not qualified by treachery, and Edgardo should be held guilty of homicide, not murder. On the mitigating circumstance of intoxication: The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's appreciation of intoxication as a mitigating circumstance. For intoxication to be mitigating, it must not be habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony, and the consumption of alcohol must have been in such a quantity as to blur the accused's reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control. Edgardo failed to prove both requisites. His claim of drinking liquor while fishing was corroborated by Roselyn's testimony of his 'red eyes,' but this alone did not establish that his reason was blurred or that he lost control. On the defense of temporary insanity: The Supreme Court found no merit in Edgardo's plea of 'temporary insanity.' The Court reiterated that 'temporary insanity' is not recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Insanity, as a ground to exclude criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, requires that the accused be deprived completely of reason and freedom of will or act without discernment. Mere abnormality of mental faculties does not exclude imputability. Moreover, the burden of proving insanity rests upon the accused, and it must be proven by clear and positive evidence. Edgardo failed to substantiate his claim, and he did not raise this defense during the trial. On the aggravating circumstance of dwelling: The trial court correctly considered the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, as the crime was committed inside the victim's house and the victim had not given any provocation. This circumstance was noted by the Court. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: The Supreme Court appreciated in Edgardo's favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Immediately after the incident, Edgardo voluntarily surrendered the knife to the purok leader, Benjamin Costimiano, and went with him to the Police Department, where he was detained. The information was filed much later. This voluntary surrender was considered a mitigating circumstance. On the denial of constitutional rights: The Supreme Court found no merit in Edgardo's claim that he was arrested without a warrant and subjected to custodial interrogation without counsel. The records showed that he voluntarily surrendered his knife and went to the police department, which led to the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. There was no clear evidence of a custodial interrogation that would require the presence of counsel. A preliminary investigation was conducted by the prosecutor. On the penalty and damages: Since the killing was not attended by treachery or any other qualifying circumstance, Edgardo was guilty of homicide. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Therefore, the imposable penalty was reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was set at eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The awards for moral damages (P50,000), exemplary damages (P30,000), and actual damages (P2,500) were affirmed, as they were duly proved. The award of P50,000 as indemnity was also affirmed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide, finding that treachery was not present as the victim was forewarned of the attack. The Court also found that intoxication was not mitigating and that 'temporary insanity' is not recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated, and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was offset by this mitigating circumstance. The penalty was adjusted accordingly.