People v. Hatague
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Peter Hatague and Orlando Mirador were charged with murder for allegedly stabbing Guillermo Abad y Botardo. The prosecution presented evidence that on October 2, 1989, the victim, Guillermo Abad, and his companions were at Jerez Restaurant. After an incident where a waitress complained about a drink, Abad and his companions went to pay their bill. As Abad proceeded to the comfort room and then towards the door, he was chased by Hatague and Mirador. Mitra, a companion of the victim, witnessed Hatague and Mirador brush past him, chase Abad, hit him with blows, and stab him. Abad was able to get up and attempt to flee but was again pursued and stabbed by Hatague until he collapsed. Abad died shortly after being rushed to the hospital. A post-mortem examination revealed the cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage from multiple stab wounds. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 164 in Pasig, Metro Manila, found both accused-appellants guilty of murder and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with civil liabilities. The accused-appellants interposed the present appeal. The Petition: The accused-appellants contended that the trial court erred in giving full weight and credit to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and disregarding the defense evidence, and in convicting them despite the absence of evidence proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full weight and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and disregarding the evidence for the defense. Whether the accused-appellants were convicted despite the absence of evidence required to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation. Whether the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength and whether a conspiracy existed between the appellants; and the modification of the penalty and civil liabilities.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court. It found the accused-appellants guilty of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, imposing an indeterminate sentence. They were also ordered to pay civil liabilities.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of witnesses and sufficiency of evidence: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect. The defense of alibi was deemed the weakest defense, especially when the accused did not deny being at the scene of the crime but merely denied participation. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses, coupled with the admission of appellant Hatague regarding his participation and the discovery of a fan knife in his possession, sufficiently proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the absence of evidence required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: The positive identification by prosecution witnesses, coupled with the admission of appellant Hatague regarding his participation and the discovery of a fan knife in his possession, sufficiently proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the presence of treachery and evident premeditation: The Court ruled that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proved due to the lack of evidence showing the time the offenders determined to commit the crime, acts indicating adherence to their determination, and a sufficient lapse of time for reflection. Treachery was also not proven because there was no showing that the victim was deprived of any means to defend himself or that the offenders consciously adopted a method of attack to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to themselves. The chase and prior altercation could have placed the victim on guard, and the attack appeared impulsive. On the presence of abuse of superior strength, conspiracy, and modification of penalty and civil liabilities: The Court found that the killing was attended by the modifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength. This was evident from the synchronal attack by two armed persons on an unarmed victim who was trying to flee. The Court correctly appreciated the existence of a conspiracy between the appellants. Conspiracy was inferred from their concerted acts of chasing the victim with the intent to assault him, with Mirador armed with a steel bar and Hatague with a pointed instrument. Both inflicted blows on the victim. The Court annulled the judgment of murder and rendered a new one finding the accused-appellants guilty of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The indeterminate sentence was imposed. The civil liabilities for funeral expenses and indemnity to the heirs were ordered to be paid jointly and severally, with the indemnity increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
While treachery and evident premeditation were not proven, the killing was attended by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which, not having been alleged in the information, could only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance for homicide. Conspiracy was established by the concerted acts of the accused.