People v. Dacillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The victim, 17-year-old Rosemarie B. Tallada, was last seen alive on the evening of February 6, 2000, near the house of appellant Francisco Dacillo. Witness Jovelyn Dagmil saw the victim enter Dacillo's house after being called. Shortly thereafter, a struggle was heard from inside, with witnesses Roche and Resna Abregon hearing sounds of a woman being beaten and seeing appellant grappling with a gagged woman. The following day, appellant was seen carrying lumber, screen, and cement, and was observed carefully locking his gate. He later entrusted a bag of women's belongings to a barangay tanod, claiming it belonged to his companion. By February 11, 2000, neighbors smelled a decomposing odor, and witnesses discovered blood and pus dripping from appellant's comfort room. Upon investigation by barangay officials and the police, a tomb-like structure was found in the comfort room, containing the decomposing body of the victim. An autopsy revealed the victim died from a stab wound in the abdomen, with multiple contusions and rib fractures, indicating she put up a struggle. Procedural History: Appellant Francisco Dacillo and Joselito Pacot were indicted for murder. The case against Pacot was provisionally dismissed. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 31, convicted appellant Dacillo of murder and sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via automatic review. The Petition: Appellant raised errors concerning his conviction for murder and the award of damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages to the heirs of the offended party and in imposing the death penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant Francisco Dacillo for murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the awards for damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for murder: The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant admitted his participation in the crime, stating he held down the victim's legs while his co-accused strangled her, and that they only stopped when she was motionless. The Court held that two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime are principals by direct participation if they participated in the criminal resolution and carried out their plan by acts directly tending to the same end. Conspiracy was inferred from their concerted actions before, during, and after the commission of the crime, including their joint effort in disposing of the victim's body, with appellant suggesting the entombment in cement. The Court also found that the killing was qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as evidenced by the disparity in physical strength between the two male assailants and the young, fragile female victim, and the severe injuries inflicted upon her. The information sufficiently alleged this circumstance. On the issue of damages and penalty: The Court found that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty based on recidivism, as this aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the information, violating Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Regarding damages, the Court affirmed the ₱50,000 civil indemnity, as it requires no proof other than the victim's death and the accused's responsibility. The ₱50,000 moral damages were also affirmed, supported by the victim's mother's testimony of immeasurable pain. The Court awarded ₱25,000 in temperate damages, as no evidence of burial and funeral expenses was presented. Finally, the Court awarded ₱25,000 in exemplary damages, citing Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which allows such damages when the crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, and the presence of abuse of superior strength warranted this award for the public good.
Main Doctrine
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism must be alleged in the information to be appreciated against the accused. The award of exemplary damages is warranted when the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance, even if ordinary.