People v. Gemoya
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 27, 1996, at around 9:00 PM, a commotion occurred in Barrio Malagamot, Panacan, Davao City. Irene Lantapon observed Armando Gemoya and Candelario Aliazar running towards their house. About half an hour later, Gemoya and Aliazar returned with Ronilo Tionko and Rolly Tionko, armed with a pipe, wood, and an improvised bow and arrow ('indian pana'). Ronilo Tionko demanded an explanation for an earlier incident. They proceeded to the house of the Alferezes and attacked Wilfredo Alferez, who was waiting for a taxi. Ronilo Tionko beat Wilfredo with a cylindrical wood, Rolly Tionko with a pipe, and Aliazar held his arms. Gemoya then shot Wilfredo with the 'indian pana' on his left chest, causing his death. Irene Lantapon was hit in her left ear by a second shot from Gemoya's 'indian pana' before the assailants fled. Procedural History: Two separate Informations were filed against Armando Gemoya, Ronilo Tionko, and two others who remained at large. Gemoya and Tionko pleaded not guilty. The cases were jointly tried. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15, found both accused guilty of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. 35,459-96 (for the injury to Rosalie Jimenez) and sentenced them to two years, four months, twenty-one days to eight years and one day imprisonment. They were also found guilty of murder in Criminal Case No. 36,460-96 (for the death of Wilfredo Alferez) and sentenced to the death penalty. The Petition: Accused-appellants Armando Gemoya and Ronilo Tionko appealed their convictions.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellants guilty of murder for the death of Wilfredo Alferez. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellants guilty of frustrated homicide for the injury sustained by Rosalie Jimenez, and if not frustrated homicide, what is the proper charge. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been appreciated in favor of Armando Gemoya. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was proper for murder and for slight physical injury.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. It also modified the conviction for the injury to Rosalie Jimenez from frustrated homicide to slight physical injury. The death penalty was set aside and replaced with reclusion perpetua, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender considered.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for murder of Wilfredo Alferez: The Court found that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused-appellants for murder. The factual findings of the trial court, which observed the witnesses firsthand, were upheld. Armando Gemoya admitted to discharging the weapon that caused Wilfredo Alferez's death, shifting the burden of proof to him to establish self-defense. The Court found that the theory of self-defense was not duly established. The presence of four armed assailants ganging up on one unarmed victim established conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The concerted acts of the accused-appellants and their companions demonstrated a common design to assail and disable their victim, signifying conspiracy. Ronilo Tionko's participation in beating the victim with a wooden cane, along with Rolly Tionko's use of a pipe and Gemoya's fatal shot, indicated a joint purpose and design. A conspirator, regardless of the minimal nature of their participation, is as guilty as the principal perpetrator. On the conviction for the injury to Rosalie Jimenez: The Court agreed with the accused-appellants that the trial court erred in convicting them of frustrated homicide for the injury to Rosalie Jimenez. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses indicated that the second shot from the 'indian pana' was accidental and was intended for Wilfredo Alferez. Therefore, the intent to kill Rosalie Jimenez, which is essential for frustrated homicide, was absent. However, the accused-appellants, acting in conspiracy, are liable for the consequences of their felonious act under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Mistake in the identity of the victim or mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus) is neither exempting nor mitigating. Since there was no evidence showing that Rosalie Jimenez was incapacitated from carrying out her habitual work, the accused-appellants were held liable only for slight physical injury under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General and accused-appellant Gemoya that the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Gemoya. This circumstance, coupled with the absence of any aggravating circumstances other than those already absorbed in the qualification of murder, warranted the imposition of the minimum penalty for murder. On the penalty for murder and slight physical injury: The Court held that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty for murder. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punished by reclusion perpetua to death. In the absence of aggravating circumstances and with the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the medium penalty should have been imposed. However, since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, the minimum penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. The Court also affirmed the award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity for the death of Wilfredo Alferez, to be paid solidarily by the accused-appellants. For the crime of slight physical injury, the Court sentenced each accused-appellant to thirty (30) days of arresto menor, as provided for under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. This penalty is to be served concurrently with the penalty for murder.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. A conspirator, no matter how minimal his participation, is as guilty as the principal perpetrator. Mistake in the identity of the victim or mistake in the blow is neither exempting nor mitigating.