G.R. No. 230170 - Mercado vs. Lopena

Two criminal cases were filed against appellant Rafael Marco in connection with two successive phases of a single occurrence, which were consolidated and tried together.
In Criminal Case No. 2757, Rafael Marco, along with his son Simeon and Dulcisimo Beltran, was charged with the murder of Bienvenido Sabelbero, qualified by abuse of superior strength.
In Criminal Case No. 2758, the appellant was charged along with Simeon with frustrated murder against Constancio Sabelbero, Bienvenido’s brother; here, the appellant was found guilty only of slight physical injuries and received a minor penalty, while Simeon was acquitted.

The incident occurred at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon in Barrio Subang, Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur during a fiesta despite rainy weather conditions.
Initially, Simeon Marco approached Constancio Sabelbero and inquired if he was responsible for an earlier boxing incident involving his brother.

Upon Constancio’s denial, Simeon brandished a one-foot-long hunting knife and inquired about cigarettes, thereby provoking fear.
Constancio ran away while Simeon chased him.

As Constancio passed by Rafael Marco, who was standing nearby, Rafael struck Constancio with a round cane.

This act formed the basis for the information in Criminal Case No. 2758, resulting in a conviction for slight physical injuries for the appellant.

Vicente, the father of Constancio and Bienvenido, witnessed the escalating situation.

Hearing shouts of “Fight! Fight!” and seeing Simeon about to stab Constancio, Vicente intervened by grabbing Simeon’s hand holding the knife.
Rafael, approaching armed with a cane and hunting knife, created an environment of imminent danger.

Vicente shouted to his sons—Constancio and Bienvenido—to run away as Rafael approached.
Bienvenido, while trying to escape, was chased by Rafael; during the pursuit, he tripped when his foot caught in a vine.
At this moment, Dulcisimo Beltran, who had not been initially active, suddenly stabbed Bienvenido near the anus while he was on the ground.
Simeon Marco followed by stabbing Bienvenido on the left breast and upper left arm.
After the stabbings, all three accused (Rafael, Simeon, and Beltran) fled the scene.

Testimonies from the prosecution’s evidence, particularly that of the lone eyewitness Dominador Carbajosa, detailed the sequence of events

Indicated that Bienvenido was very near to the accused at the time of the fatal stabbings.
Provided a narrative where the actions of Rafael in hitting Constancio and inflicting a minor wound on Bienvenido were distinct from the subsequent fatal stabbings by Beltran and Simeon.

The evidence revealed that the acts of the accused were successive rather than simultaneous.
There was uncertainty concerning the relative distances and positions of the accused during the incident, particularly the proximity of Rafael to both Simeon and the fleeing victims.
The testimony and demonstrative evidence (e.g., the witness’s physical demonstration of Bienvenido’s position) introduced ambiguity regarding whether the acts were prearranged or coincidental.
Appellant’s counsel later argued that the evidence failed to show a concerted or premeditated conspiracy involving Rafael Marco, as his act of hitting Bienvenido only produced a slight injury.

Asserted that there was no direct evidence of a common criminal design or conspiracy with respect to the killing of Bienvenido Sabelbero.
Pointed out the succession of events, highlighting that Rafael’s initial act of striking did not merge in time and motive with the subsequent killings produced by Dulcisimo Beltran and Simeon Marco.
Emphasized that any alleged participation in murder should require proof beyond a mere sequence of aggressive acts and that the evidence was too vague and incomplete regarding positions and intent.

Whether the evidence on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Rafael Marco was a participant in a common scheme or criminal conspiracy with Dulcisimo Beltran and Simeon Marco for the killing of Bienvenido Sabelbero.
Whether the successive nature of the acts (with Rafael’s initial hit and the later stabbings by Beltran and Simeon) is sufficient to impute a shared criminal intent or conspiracy among the accused.
Whether the act committed by Rafael Marco (stabbing that caused a slight wound on the left hand of the decedent) can be held as the proximate cause of the death, under Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the trial court erred in treating the stabbing as a unitary act necessitating a conviction for murder, rather than distinguishing between the different phases and participants in the crime.