People v. Celespara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 2, 1942, at approximately 8 o'clock in the evening, while Sotero Cantong and his sisters Catalina and Aurea were taking supper in their house in barrio Agrupacion, they heard a noise of nipa shingles being separated from the walling of the house. Immediately thereafter, a gunshot was heard. Sotero Cantong, looking from the kitchen, saw Vivencio Celespara holding a homemade shotgun (bardug) and firing through a hole in the wall. His elder sister, Catalina Cantong, was shot on the left nipple and died instantly. Sotero Cantong testified that he was not on good terms with the accused because the latter was pursuing his wife, Guillerma de los Reyes, who later became the accused's paramour and common-law wife, with whom he had a child. Victorino Caranog testified that on the afternoon of October 2, 1942, he accompanied Vivencio Celespara and others, who were members of the home volunteer guards under Corporal Alberto Donor, to barrio Bagasbas to check for Japanese soldiers. Upon reaching barrio Agrupacion, Celespara was seen peeping through the nipa shingles of Sotero Cantong's house and placing the barrel of his bardug through a hole in the kitchen wall. Caranog advised Celespara not to do so as the inhabitants were civilians, but Celespara disregarded the advice. Shortly after Caranog left, a gunshot was heard, which he identified as coming from Celespara's gun. Celespara later admitted to Donor that he was the one who fired at Sotero Cantong. Silvestre Rondina corroborated Caranog's testimony, stating that Celespara was separating nipa shingles and placing his gun through the wall. He also heard a gunshot shortly after leaving the vicinity. Justina Albaes, mother of the accused, testified that her son was a member of the guerrilla organization and that she learned of Catalina Cantong's death the day after an encounter between guerrillas and Japanese soldiers. She admitted to being pro-Japanese and that Japanese soldiers frequented her house. She also stated that Guillerma de los Reyes became the common-law wife of Vivencio Celespara in 1943, and that Sotero Cantong was a policeman under the Japanese regime. Vivencio Celespara testified that he was a member of the guerrilla organization under Sergeant Donor. He claimed that they were ordered to attack barrio Agrupacion, believing Japanese soldiers were in Sotero Cantong's house. He stated that he was detailed at the door of Sotero Cantong's house and fired when he saw someone attempting to jump out of the window. He admitted that he and three others reported firing their weapons and that they later discovered a Filipino, not a Japanese, had been killed. He also confirmed that Guillerma de los Reyes, wife of Sotero Cantong, went to their evacuation place in 1943 and they lived as husband and wife. Sotero Cantong, in rebuttal, denied being a policeman under the Japanese regime and denied that Japanese soldiers frequented his house. He stated that no Japanese came to his house and that Catalina Cantong had never entertained Japanese soldiers. Procedural History: The case was appealed to the Supreme Court from a decision of a lower court. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Vivencio Celespara, appealed his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Catalina Cantong was qualified by treachery. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling were present. Whether the minority of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense should be considered and how it affects the penalty, particularly in light of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the accused's cohabitation with the victim's wife affects his entitlement to the benefits for minors.
Ruling
The appealed decision is modified. Vivencio Celespara is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P6,000 and the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the qualification of treachery: The Court affirmed that the killing was qualified by treachery. The evidence showed that the accused approached the house and, without warning, fired through a hole in the wall while the victim was inside taking supper. This mode of attack, employed without any risk to the assailant arising from the defense which the offended party might have made, demonstrates treachery. The victim was not given an opportunity to defend herself, and the attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the accomplishment of the criminal intent. The act of Celespara in peeping through the nipa shingles and firing through the wall directly into the house where the victim was situated clearly indicates a deliberate plan to attack without risk to himself. The prosecution witnesses, Victorino Caranog and Silvestre Rondina, corroborated the manner of the attack, establishing that the accused deliberately used a method that deprived the victim of any chance to resist or escape. Therefore, the killing constitutes murder due to the presence of treachery. On the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling: The Court found no evidence to support the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling. There was no proof that the accused intentionally sought the cover of darkness to prevent his being recognized, to avoid interference, or to gain some advantage. The fact that the killing occurred at night does not automatically make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance unless it is shown to have been deliberately utilized for the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the house where the deceased was shot was described by Sotero Cantong as a structure he built for his wife's delivery, not a permanent dwelling. The mere fact that the deceased was taking supper therein at the time did not make it her dwelling in the legal sense required for the aggravating circumstance. Thus, these circumstances could not be considered against the accused. On the minority of the accused and Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court noted that the accused was between 15 and 16 years old when the crime was committed, which would ordinarily entitle him to the benefits of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code concerning minors. However, since the accused was already of legal age when he testified, he could no longer be committed to a reformatory institution as prescribed by the article. The Court acknowledged a legislative hiatus in addressing such situations but found it unnecessary to resolve it in this specific case. The Court pointed out that the accused's conduct, specifically his cohabitation with Guillerma de los Reyes, the wife of the victim's brother, precluded him from enjoying the right to release provided by Article 80. This behavior demonstrated a disregard for legal and moral norms, which the law aims to address through its provisions for minors. Despite this, the Court held that the fact that he was a minor at the time of the offense could still be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the imposition of the penalty. On the effect of cohabitation with the victim's wife: The Court considered the accused's cohabitation with Guillerma de los Reyes, the wife of Sotero Cantong, as a factor that disqualified him from the full benefits of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court stated that such conduct, which began in 1943 after the crime was committed in 1942, demonstrated a moral deficiency that the law, through Article 80, seeks to correct by committing minors to appropriate institutions. While the accused was already of age when he testified, his actions indicated a pattern of behavior that would have warranted institutionalization had he still been a minor at the time of sentencing. This behavior, however, did not negate the fact that he was a minor when the crime was committed, and thus, his minority was still considered a mitigating circumstance.
Main Doctrine
The killing of Catalina Cantong by appellant Vivencio Celespara is qualified by treachery. While the accused was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, his subsequent cohabitation with the victim's husband's wife precludes him from the benefits of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, but his minority may still be considered as a mitigating circumstance. The aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling were not proven.