People v. Gandia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants were indicted for murder for the killing of Louie Albuero. The prosecution established that at around 12 midnight of June 27, 1993, while the victim and his companions were at a drinking spree at the Ruby Disco Pub, an altercation ensued. After the victim boxed the owner, Damaso Gandia, Damaso instructed his men to chase the victim. Damaso also fired his gun from the upper floor of the pub. The victim, along with his companions, fled but were caught up with. As the victim lay prone, he was stabbed several times by Gonzales, Dante, Ramirez, and Olleres, while Calaripio and Bagolbagol watched. The victim died due to severe hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found all six accused guilty of murder, sentencing five to reclusion perpetua and one, Ernesto Calaripio, to an indeterminate sentence due to minority. The RTC also ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Damaso, Dante, and Ramirez withdrew their appeals. Pursuant to People v. Mateo, the case of Olleres, Gonzales, and Calaripio was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants, including those who had withdrawn their appeals, but modified the RTC decision by acquitting Calaripio and imposing exemplary damages on the five convicted accused. The CA's decision was affirmed with modification by the Supreme Court, which clarified that the CA erred in modifying the judgment as to Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante who had withdrawn their appeals. The Petition: Appellants Olleres and Gonzales faulted the CA in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and argued that the aggravating circumstance of treachery was not alleged with specificity to qualify the killing to murder. They posited that they should only be held liable for homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of appellants Renato Olleres and Joel Gonzales for murder. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the trial court's decision with respect to accused who had withdrawn their appeals.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. It held that Renato Olleres and Joel Gonzales were correctly found guilty of murder. However, the Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the trial court's judgment as to Damaso Gandia, Jerry Ramirez, and Dante Gandia, who had withdrawn their appeals and whose cases had become final and executory. Ernesto Calaripio was acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction of appellants Olleres and Gonzales: The Court found the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the guilt of appellants Olleres and Gonzales well-taken. The prosecution established the commission of murder, and the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to overturn their conviction. The elements of murder, including the qualifying circumstance of treachery, were sufficiently proven by the prosecution's evidence. The Court reiterated that treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, the victim was attacked while in a prone position after stumbling, indicating that the means employed tended to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. On the modification of the judgment as to accused who withdrew their appeals: The Court held that the appellate court erred in ordering Damaso, Ramirez, and Dante, who had withdrawn their appeals, to pay exemplary damages. The Court emphasized that the trial court's decision in so far as these accused were concerned had become final and executory after they withdrew their appeal. Separate entries of judgment had been made with respect to them. As such, the appellate court was bereft of the power to modify the trial court's judgment as to them. The Court cited Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which states that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. In this instance, the modification imposing exemplary damages was not favorable to the accused who had not appealed.
Main Doctrine
The appellate court cannot modify a trial court's judgment as to accused who withdrew their appeal, as their case becomes final and executory. An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.