People v. Mendez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 3, 1994, at approximately 9:45 PM, in Barangay Pandan, Sogod, Southern Leyte, Vidal Larita was allegedly attacked, hacked, and stabbed by accused Pablo Lansang, Noel Murial, and Victor Mendez, resulting in his instantaneous death. The Information charged the three with murder, alleging conspiracy, intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery. Procedural History: All three accused pleaded not guilty. Victor Mendez and Noel Murial later withdrew their plea and pleaded guilty to homicide. Trial proceeded against Pablo Lansang. The prosecution presented evidence that Vidal Larita was invited to a novena prayer, where he had an altercation with Nene Mendez the week prior. After the prayer, while Vidal Larita was still drinking, Lansang's wife invited him. Later, Antonio Larita heard Lansang shouting, "Ayaw paikyasa." Upon investigating, he saw his father being attacked by Lansang, Nene Mendez, Victor Mendez, and others. Vidal Larita escaped and went to the house of Sulpicio and Juana Olaco, recounting the fight. Lansang and Murial arrived with bolos, and Murial hacked Larita's arm, after which Lansang stabbed him. Dr. Myrna C. Tan conducted the post-mortem examination, finding fifteen wounds. The defense presented Noel Murial and Victor Mendez, who testified that Vidal Larita stabbed Nene Mendez, and they retaliated. They claimed Lansang was not involved and was at the hospital. The RTC found Pablo Lansang guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, jointly and severally liable for P50,000.00 death indemnity. The Petition: Accused-appellant Pablo Lansang appealed, assigning errors regarding his conviction for murder despite reasonable doubt of his presence and arguing that if he participated, he should only be guilty of homicide mitigated by immediate vindication of a relative.
Issue(s)
Whether accused-appellant Pablo Lansang was present at the crime scene and participated in the killing. Whether the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative is applicable. Whether treachery can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Whether abuse of superior strength can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the RTC decision, finding accused-appellant Pablo Lansang guilty of Homicide, not Murder. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of P50,000.00 as death indemnity was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of presence and participation: The Court found that the defense of alibi presented by accused-appellant Pablo Lansang was not credible. This was in light of the positive identification by prosecution witnesses Juana Olaco and Barangay Tanod Cecilio Cabales, who personally knew the accused-appellant. The Court reiterated the principle that positive identification by credible witnesses cannot be overcome by the defense of alibi, especially when the claimed alibi location was near the crime scene, making physical impossibility of presence unlikely. The Court noted that one of the co-accused, Noel Murial, admitted Juana Olaco's presence during the killing. On the applicability of defense of a relative: The Court ruled that the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative was not applicable. This is because the requisites for such defense include unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and no part in provocation. In this case, after the fight between Vidal Larita and Nene Mendez, Larita ran away, ceasing the unlawful aggression. Therefore, any subsequent use of force by the accused-appellant was unjustified as there was no longer any hostility to repel. On the appreciation of treachery: The Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of treachery. Treachery requires an attack that is deliberate, without warning, and executed in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the victim no chance to resist or escape. However, in this case, the attack was not unexpected or without warning. Prosecution witness Cecilio Cabales testified that he warned the victim to watch out because he was being sought. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that treachery cannot be appreciated if the killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel, as this would have placed the victim on guard. The victim had just been in a fight and had informed witnesses that he had stabbed Nene Mendez, indicating he was aware of potential reprisal. On the appreciation of abuse of superior strength: The Court noted that while the trial court found abuse of superior strength, this circumstance was not specifically alleged in the information. Consequently, it could not be appreciated either as a qualifying or an aggravating circumstance, as per the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This omission meant that the crime could not be elevated to murder based on this ground. On the classification of the crime: Based on the absence of treachery and the non-appreciation of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance, and considering the presence of conspiracy among the accused, the Court concluded that the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. The penalty for Homicide, as prescribed by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty.
Main Doctrine
Treachery cannot be appreciated when the killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel, as the victim would have been placed on guard. Abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated if not alleged in the information. Consequently, the crime committed is Homicide, not Murder.