Facts:

The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee against defendants-appellants Ruben Cabarrubias, also known as "Amben," and Zosimo Antiporda, also known as "Samong." The events took place on July 13, 1986, at approximately 7:00 PM in Barangay Patoc, Bucay, Abra, Philippines. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Bangued, Abra, convicted both defendants of murder in Criminal Cases Nos. 442 and 443. The court found Cabarrubias guilty of murdering Jonalyn Espiritu, an eight-year-old girl, and Antiporda guilty of murdering Pedro Espiritu, a seventeen-year-old boy. The trial court's decision highlighted that the killing of Jonalyn was characterized by treachery and the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, while Pedro's murder was also qualified by treachery. The defendants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the victims' families P100,000 each.

The information in Criminal Case No. 442 stated that...

Facts:

Incident Overview

• On July 13, 1986, at around 7:00 P.M., in Barangay Patoc, Bucay, Abra, two separate stabbing incidents occurred, resulting in the deaths of Jonalyn Espiritu (an 8-year-old child) and Pedro Espiritu (a 17-year-old). The accused, Ruben Cabarrubias alias "Amben" and Zosimo Antiporda alias "Samong," were charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Details of the Crimes

• Criminal Case No. 442 (Jonalyn Espiritu):
  Ruben Cabarrubias was accused of stabbing Jonalyn Espiritu multiple times with a sharp-pointed bolo, causing her death. The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by nighttime.

  • Jonalyn was found squatting on the ground, bleeding, and identified Cabarrubias as her attacker before she died the following day.
  • Cabarrubias admitted to stabbing Jonalyn but claimed he was in a state of insanity and acted under an irresistible force.

• Criminal Case No. 443 (Pedro Espiritu):
  Zosimo Antiporda was accused of stabbing Pedro Espiritu in the neck, causing his death. The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by nighttime.

  • Pedro, before collapsing and dying, identified Antiporda as his attacker.
  • Antiporda denied involvement and relied on an alibi, claiming Cabarrubias was the actual perpetrator.

Trial Proceedings

• Both accused pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
• The cases were tried jointly due to the proximity of time and place of occurrence.
• Cabarrubias attempted to plead guilty to a lesser offense (homicide) and assume responsibility for Pedro's death, but the trial court rejected this.
• The trial court convicted both accused of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay indemnity to the victims' families.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Insanity and Irresistible Force:

   • Insanity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which Cabarrubias failed to provide. His actions, including his lucid account of the events, negated his claim of insanity.

2. Mitigating Circumstances:

   • Lack of intent to kill and passion or obfuscation were not applicable. The use of a bolo and the nature of the wounds inflicted on Jonalyn showed intent to kill.

3. Treachery and Nighttime:

   • Treachery was properly appreciated in Cabarrubias' case due to the victim's tender age, which made her incapable of defending herself.
   • In Antiporda's case, treachery was not proven, as the mode of attack was not clearly established.
   • Nighttime was not properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in both cases, as there was no evidence it was purposely sought to facilitate the crimes.

4. Dying Declarations and Credibility of Witnesses:

   • The dying declarations of Pedro and Jonalyn were given full credence by the Court.
   • The trial court's findings on witness credibility were upheld, as appellate courts generally defer to the trial court's assessment of witness testimony.

5. Alibi and Lack of Motive:

   • Antiporda's alibi was rejected because he was positively identified at the scene of the crime.
   • Lack of motive does not exonerate an accused when their participation in the crime is clearly established.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications. Ruben Cabarrubias was convicted of murder, while Zosimo Antiporda's conviction was downgraded to homicide. Both were ordered to pay indemnity to the victims' families.