People v. Llanda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 3, 1994, at approximately 6:30 p.m., the victim Cornelio Coronado was having supper with his family in their home in Tudela, Misamis Occidental. Suddenly, a shot was fired through the slits of the kitchen wall, striking Cornelio in the head and causing instantaneous death. Nena Coronado, the victim's daughter, peeped through the wall and identified the appellant, Romeo Llanda, as the shooter. Jessie Coronado, the victim's son, also saw the appellant walking around the house armed with a pistol and a bolo, wearing black gloves and a towel around his head. The motive was traced to a land dispute between the appellant's father and the victim. Procedural History: The appellant was charged with murder. After pleading not guilty, he escaped from police custody while being escorted to a hearing. Consequently, the trial proceeded in absentia. On May 27, 1996, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamiz City, Branch 15, found the appellant guilty of murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling, and sentenced him to death. The Appeal: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Despite the appellant remaining at large, the Court proceeded with the review due to the imposition of the death penalty. The appellant, through counsel, argued that the prosecution failed to prove treachery and dwelling beyond reasonable doubt and that the crime should be downgraded to homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to identify the appellant as the perpetrator and sustain a conviction for murder. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated, and whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling can be considered despite not being alleged in the Information. Whether the death penalty was the correct penalty considering the allegations in the Information, and the proper application of penalties under the Revised Penal Code given the presence of treachery and the absence of a properly alleged aggravating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of Romeo Llanda for murder but MODIFIED the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court also ordered the payment of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through the credible and consistent testimonies of the victim's children, Nena and Jessie Coronado. The defense of alibi was rejected because the appellant failed to demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene, especially since the location he claimed to be in was within the same general area. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the appellant's flight after his arraignment is a strong indication of guilt, as 'the flight of an accused, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be drawn.' The Court found no improper motive for the witnesses to falsely accuse the appellant, a long-time neighbor. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the finding of treachery, noting that the victim was shot suddenly while eating supper, a situation where he was totally unprepared for an attack and had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. This deliberate adoption of a means of execution that insures the safety of the attacker constitutes treachery. However, the Court ruled that the circumstance of dwelling could not be appreciated. Although the facts showed the crime occurred in the victim's home, the Information failed to allege dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. On Issue 3: Applying the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure retroactively, the Court held that under Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, every Information must specify both qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Since dwelling was not alleged in the Information filed against the appellant, it cannot be considered to increase the penalty to death. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. In the absence of any other aggravating circumstances and with treachery serving as the qualifying circumstance, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code dictates the imposition of the lesser indivisible penalty, which is reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that for an aggravating circumstance to be appreciated in the imposition of a penalty, it must be specifically alleged in the Information. This requirement, introduced by the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, is applied retroactively to cases pending review if it benefits the accused. Furthermore, treachery is established when an attack is sudden and unexpected, such as when a victim is eating, thereby depriving the victim of any opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate. The Court also maintains that its power of automatic review in death penalty cases is a constitutional duty that must be exercised even if the accused has escaped custody.