G.R. No. 231765 - Delos Santos vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231765)

Procedural Posture and Applicable Law

Case tried as Criminal Case No. Q-08-154512 in Branch 224, Regional Trial Court (Quezon City) after transfer from Branch 50, RTC San Jacinto, Masbate. Appeal from RTC decision went to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06947. Petition for review on certiorari was brought to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. Penal provision at issue: Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). Procedural rules cited include Rules 45, 122, and 124 of the Rules of Court. Because the decision date is in 2020, the 1987 Philippine Constitution was applied as the governing constitution.

Charged Offense and Arraignment

An Information charged the accused with murder, alleging that on or about March 7 (the Information states 2007) at about 7:35 p.m. at Barangay Baybay Dagat, the accused, armed and with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, superior strength and abuse of public office, and in conspiracy, shot and killed Pio V. Ontog, Jr. PO1 Delos Santos pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

Factual Findings as Recited by the Court of Appeals

As found by the CA, on the evening in question two groups converged at Barangay Captain Arevalo’s house: the victim Pio, PO1 Ronald B. Medalla, and a barangay tanod; and the Arevalo group including Galos, Almoete, the barangay captain, and Danilo Arevalo. An altercation ensued, during which Galos allegedly pulled a .45 caliber firearm, struck PO1 Medalla, aimed and fired at Pio, and then continued firing. Witnesses reported the barangay captain urged the assailants to shoot Pio. Oliva, a witness, fled to report the incident but was, according to his testimony, intercepted and temporarily detained in a warehouse by PO1 Delos Santos and Rodolfo Pelones—both allegedly armed and in civilian clothing—before being allowed to leave when uniformed policemen passed by. Pio was apprehended, taken to hospital, and declared dead on arrival.

Defense Version Presented at Trial

The defense account, as summarized by the CA, depicted a chaotic scuffle during which PO1 Medalla allegedly brandished a gun and, in the course of a struggle with Galos, the firearm discharged and struck Pio. The defense contended the shooting resulted from an accidental discharge amid a physical struggle and that PO1 Delos Santos’ role was limited to police activities at and after the scene rather than active participation in the shooting.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court found PO1 Delos Santos and Salvador Galos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced them each to reclusion perpetua, with awards of indemnity, temperate damages, exemplary and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. (Subsequently, proceedings against Galos were dismissed due to his death and Delos Santos appealed.)

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of PO1 Delos Santos for murder but modified the damages, increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages, and imposing legal interest of 6% per annum on all damages from finality of the CA decision until fully paid.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The narrow issue presented was whether the conviction of PO1 Delos Santos for murder was proper, focusing principally on whether evidence established his participation in a conspiracy to commit murder. Petitioner argued that the courts below erred in basing conspiracy on testimony of a single witness (Oliva) who said Delos Santos prevented him from reporting the crime, and that the lower courts wrongly treated Delos Santos’ inaction as actionable conspiracy given that the shooting had already occurred.

Supreme Court’s Preliminary Observations on Mode of Appeal

The Court noted that PO1 Delos Santos filed the wrong procedural mode of appeal (Rule 45 notice rather than appeal by notice to the CA where reclusion perpetua was imposed under Rules 122 and 124). Nonetheless, recognizing the primacy of substantial justice where liberty is at stake, the Court declined to dismiss on technical grounds and proceeded to resolve the merits.

Legal Standard on Conspiracy and Its Proof

The Court reiterated principles stated in prior jurisprudence: conspiracy exists where there is unity of purpose and intention to commit a crime and may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the crime; it need not be established by direct evidence. However, mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval without cooperation is insufficient. There must be intentional participation with a view to further the common design; mere presence at the scene, or passive cognizance, does not suffice. When conspiracy is inferred, the evidence establishing it must meet the same degree of proof required to establish the substantive offense.

Application of the Law to the Facts

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 231765)

Court and Citation

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Second Division.
G.R. No. 231765.
Reported at 879 Phil. 385.
Decision promulgated August 24, 2020.
Decision penned by Justice Inting; Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on official leave.

Parties

Petitioner: Police Officer I Carlo B. Delos Santos (PO1 Delos Santos).
Respondents: People of the Philippines; Floranton V. Ontog (victim identified in parts of the record as Pio V. Ontog, Jr.).
Co-accused named in the Information: Salvador C. Galos (Galos), Danilo A. Arevalo (Arevalo), Barangay Captain Erlinda Arevalo (Brgy. Capt. Arevalo), Ronaldo "Bahotog" Almoete (Almoete), and three John Does.

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 2, 2016 and its Resolution dated May 3, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06947 which affirmed with modification the RTC Quezon City Decision dated March 18, 2014 finding PO1 Delos Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.

Information and Charge

Information for Murder alleging that on or about March 7, 2007 at 7:35 o’clock in the evening at Brgy. Baybay Dagat, Municipality of San Fernando, Province of Masbate, the accused, armed with guns, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, with superior strength and taking advantage of public position, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and shot Pio V. Ontog, Jr., hitting him on different parts of his body which caused his death.
The Information charged multiple qualifying and aggravating circumstances: intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, superior strength, taking advantage of public position, conspiracy, confederation, and mutual assistance.

Arraignment and Venue

Upon arraignment, PO1 Delos Santos pleaded not guilty.
Trial venue was transferred from Branch 50, RTC, San Jacinto, Masbate to Branch 224, RTC, Quezon City.

Facts as Found by the Court of Appeals (chronology and core elements)

Date and time (as found by CA): March 7, 2009, at around 7:35 p.m. (record contains differing date in the Information).
Persons present at Brgy. Capt. Arevalo’s house: PO1 Ronald B. Medalla (PO1 Medalla), Pio V. Ontog, Jr. (“Mata” / Pio), Joseph Oliva (barangay tanod), Galos, Almoete, Brgy. Capt. Arevalo and her husband Danilo Arevalo.
Initial confrontation: Galos shouted "bakit sino ka ba?", pulled a .45 caliber gun and struck PO1 Medalla on the upper left lip with the butt of the gun.
Attempted pacification: Pio told parties "tama na yan, maliit na bagay lang yan." PO1 Medalla tried to grab Galos’ gun; Almoete pulled PO1 Medalla back.
Shooting sequence: Galos allegedly poked his gun at PO1 Medalla, then aimed and fired at Pio, hitting him above the abdomen; more gunshots followed. Oliva and PO1 Medalla observed continuous firing; Pio tried to hide behind a motorcycle and was seen holding his chest.
Alleged instigation by Brgy. Capt. Arevalo: witnesses heard her shout "sige, barilin nyo na si 'Mata' (Pio) dahil matapang yan."
Immediate aftermath: Oliva ran toward the police station to report but, according to prosecution witnesses, was prevented by PO1 Delos Santos and Rodolfo Pelones (Pelones), both in civilian clothes; PO1 Delos Santos allegedly poked his M-14 rifle at Oliva and brought him into a warehouse (camalig) owned by Noli Arevalo (alias "Bullet"); Pelones allegedly stood guard armed with an M-16; Oliva was later allowed to leave when two uniformed policemen passed by.
Reporting and hospital: Oliva reported the incident to Marvie Bravo at an adjacent house; Oliva returned to the scene, assisted in recovery of Pio’s body; Pio was brought to hospital where Dr. Roger Lim declared him dead on arrival.
Political context noted by prosecution: the incident was politically motivated; Pio, Kgd. Barroga and Oliva were leaders/supporters of Marvie Bravo while the Arevalos supported Mayor Helen Bunan; PO1 Delos Santos was known as Mayor Bunan’s security escort.

Prosecution’s Evidence and Contentions

Witnesses positively identified PO1 Delos Santos at the crime scene and testified he prevented Oliva from reporting the incident, implying active participation in a conspiracy to kill Pio.
Testimony indicates Brgy. Capt. Arevalo’s provocative command to shoot Pio and that Galos fired the fatal shots.
Prosecution urged that qualifying and aggravating circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation, conspiracy, abuse of superior strength, aid of armed men, and abuse of public position) were present.

Defense Version (as found by the CA)

Galos was at Danilo’s house to collect payment for fish sold.
PO1 Medalla confronted Danilo regarding a prohibition; PO1 Medalla allegedly poked a gun at Danilo and Galos; after a scuffle in which Galos and PO1 Medalla wrestled for the gun, the gun allegedly fired accidentally and struck Pio.
Galos allegedly escaped to hide in Danilo’s house and later encountered PO3 Roger Alindogan (armed with an armalite) and SPO4 Centura. Galos voluntarily went to the police station where PO1 Medalla was writing in the blotter.
PO1 Delos Santos’ testimony: he was at the crime scene wi