G.R. No. L-1394 - Yrostorza vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1394)

Factual Background

On September 27, 1984, at around seven o’clock in the evening, Arsenito Dagacay and his family were having supper at their house in Linangcayan, Naawan, Misamis Oriental. Sounds of agitated pigs preceded the incident. Arcie, a nine-year-old child among five children, noticed the nozzle of a gun resting on the wall rail pointing at his father. Before he could react, a sudden burst of gunfire erupted, and the entire family crouched on the floor. Arcie and his sister Gina were wounded, while their father Arsenito was slain.

Despite being hit in the head, Arcie managed to rise and sought help from his grandfather, Felix Dagacay, who lived about one hundred meters away. As Arcie passed through the kitchen door, he saw three armed persons coming from below their house. The moon was out and the house lights were on. From a distance of about seven meters, one of the men glanced sideways at Arcie. Arcie recognized the man as Alex Abitona, whom he knew by face because they sometimes met at the Naawan municipal hall, and by name because his father had once described Abitona as one of the bodyguards of then Naawan mayor Sulpicio Laranjo. Arcie omitted to tell Felix the suspect’s identity, but he told his mother, Conchita, that Alex Abitona was responsible for the shooting.

Neighboring persons heard the gunshots. Felix was on his balcony when the shooting occurred. After a while, Felix received Arcie, who was drenched in blood, asking for help. Arsenito was found dead. Felix then sought assistance from Barangay Captain Tirso Perpetua, whose wife, Leonisa, accompanied him to the police detachment at the municipal hall of Naawan to report the incident. The police did not take action, prompting Felix to borrow a vehicle from the parish church so he could convey Arcie and Gina to the hospital in Iligan City.

Another neighbor, Lydia Dagiaposo, had hidden after hearing the shots. She saw three armed persons coming from the direction of the shots, specifically from Arsenito Dagacay’s house. One man walked casually, while the other two—she identified as Abitona and Lito Cruz—walked hurriedly. Lydia brought the children to the hospital but did not inform anyone of what she saw until after Arsenito was buried. It was then that Felix learned the identity of the suspects.

Felix’s follow-up on his complaint proved futile because Chief of Police Hilario Badal did not act. This inaction led Felix to seek help from the NBI.

Procedural History and Charging

The complaints were filed on July 14, 1986 by NBI Agent Justiniano O. Parras, but the informations for murder and two frustrated murders were filed only on October 16, 1987. Abitona denied any participation in the shooting. He asserted that at the time of the incident, he and co-accused Lito Cruz were at the municipal building of Naawan, about two kilometers from Linangcayan, which defense witnesses described as reachable by jeep within ten minutes. Cruz, a member of the Civilian Home Defense Force, and Abitona, a stay-in utility man, were allegedly required to remain at the municipal building because of a standing threat of attack by the New People’s Army insurgents.

Abitona also denied that he was Mayor Laranjo’s bodyguard, while admitting that he was allowed to carry firearms and go with the army, police, or PC to critical areas. Defense witnesses—Chief of Police Hilario Badal and then Naawan mayor Sulpicio Laranjo, both allegedly billeted at the municipal building during the red alert situation—corroborated the alibi.

After trial, Judge Alejandro M. Velez rendered judgment on April 19, 1990. The trial court found Abitona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged in three informations: murder for Arsenito’s death and two frustrated murders for Gina’s and Arcie’s injuries. It imposed life imprisonment for murder due to the abolition of the death penalty under the new Constitution, and reclusion temporal in the medium period for each frustrated murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and ordering successive service under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. The court ordered indemnity to Arsenito’s heirs of P30,000.00, and P5,000.00 each to Gina and Arcie. Lito Cruz was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, Abitona argued for acquittal based on the acquittal of co-accused Lito Cruz, asserting that the evidence used to convict him was the same as that used to acquit Cruz. He further contended that he was never seen firing a gun. He also challenged the weight given to Arcie’s testimony, citing the boy’s tender age at the time of the incident and the lapse of four years before Arcie testified. Finally, Abitona claimed the prosecution failed to establish intent to kill Arcie and Gina and failed to prove that they sustained gunshot wounds.

Appellate Ruling and Disposition

The Court sustained the convictions, but it modified the nature of the offenses and adjusted the penalties. It ruled that Abitona’s participation was established through the testimony of Arcie and Lydia Dagiaposo, and through circumstantial evidence showing that Abitona was identified at and immediately after the shooting while carrying a high-powered firearm. It held that the evidence sufficiently established intent to kill and that Gina and Arcie were wounded as a result of the shooting. However, it found that although the informations indicated evident premeditation as the qualifying circumstance, such qualifying circumstance was not proven.

Instead, the Court appreciated other circumstances affecting the penalty: treachery and dwelling were treated as aggravating circumstances, while nighttime and superior strength were treated as absorbed in treachery. The Court concluded that because these aggravating circumstances were merely generic (since they were not alleged in the informations as qualifying), Abitona could be convicted only of homicide for Arsenito’s death and frustrated homicide for the injuries to Gina and Arcie.

Accordingly, the Court modified the trial court’s judgment as follows: In Criminal Case No. 7963, for Arsenito’s death, Abitona was found guilty of HOMICIDE and imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court increased the indemnity to P50,000.00 for Arsenito’s heirs. In Criminal Cases Nos. 7964 and 7965, Abitona was found guilty of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE, with each case carrying an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. The awards of P5,000.00 each to Gina and Arcie were affirmed, and the Court required successive service under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court gave weight to the trial court’s firsthand assessment of credibility, emphasizing that the trial judge’s evaluation was based on direct observation of the witnesses. It agreed that Arcie’s youth at the time of the incident did not impair the truthfulness or accuracy of his account. The Court noted Arcie’s presence of mind in seeking help for his father from Felix even after he was wounded and confronted with the possibility of further danger. The Court reiterated the general principle that children often make reliable witnesses due to their power of observation and recall, and because of their presumed innocence, provided they understand the import of an oath.

The Court rejected Abitona’s insistence on acquittal by reason of co-accused Lito Cruz’s acquittal. It held that Abitona’s defense and alibi could not prevail against the evidence placing him at the crime scene shortly after the shooting. It found that although the defense witnesses claimed the municipal building was only about two kilometers away and reachable in ten minutes, the situation was not such as to make Abitona’s presence at the scene at around seven o’clock in the evening implausible. The Court held that while nobody saw Abitona actually firing the gun, two witnesses saw Abitona fleeing immediately after the shooting, “hurriedly walking,” coming from the lower portion of Arsenito Dagacay’s house at the back, and carrying an armalite firearm.

The Court treated these observations as a natural and rational chain of circumstances that proved Abitona’s participation. It cited the rule that when the established facts and circumstances are not only consistent with guilt but inconsistent with innocence, they may outweigh direct evidence. The Court found the intent to kill adequately established because the accused used a high-powered automatic weapon against an unsuspecting family in a surprise attack during supper.

On the issue of the wounds suffered by Gina and Arcie, the Court held that it was supported by the combined testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It also observed that the absence of additional proof, or the fact that Gina did not take the stand, did not negate the occurrence of the crimes against her.

Finally, the Court addressed the proper classification of the offense. It noted that evident premeditation was the only qualifying circumstance indicated in the informations, but it was not proven. It appreciated treachery based on the method of attack: the offenders hid under cover of night and suddenly and unexpectedly shot the victims with an automatic rifle while they were eating supper. It further observed that after the a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-1394)

The case arose from a shooting incident in Linangcayan, Naawan, Misamis Oriental, on September 27, 1984, that killed Arsenito Dagacay and wounded his children Arcie and Gina.
The People of the Philippines appealed the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20 decision convicting Alex Abitona, while Abitona assailed his conviction in the Court.
The Court ultimately modified the trial court’s conviction and the penalties imposed.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Alex Abitona for Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder.
Alex Abitona appealed from the RTC decision dated April 19, 1990.
The RTC convicted Abitona and acquitted Lito Cruz due to failure of the prosecution to prove Cruz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the appeal, Abitona raised questions on the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, the effect of the acquittal of his co-accused, and the establishment of intent and resultant injuries.
The Court modified the RTC judgment by reducing the convictions to homicide and frustrated homicide due to the treatment of qualifying circumstances as generic aggravating circumstances.

Key Factual Allegations

At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of September 27, 1984, Arsenito Dagacay and his family were having supper when they heard agitated sounds outside.
Arcie, then a nine-year old, noticed the nozzle of a gun pointed at his father resting on the wall rail.
A sudden burst of gunfire erupted, causing the family to crouch on the floor, and the shooting resulted in the death of Arsenito and injuries to Arcie and Gina.
After being hit in the head, Arcie rose and sought help from his grandfather Felix Dagacay, who lived about 100 meters away.
When Arcie passed through the kitchen door, he saw three armed persons coming from below their house, with the moon out and lights on inside the house.
From around seven meters, one man glanced at Arcie sideways, and Arcie recognized the man as Alex Abitona by both face and name.
Arcie’s father had previously described Abitona as one of the bodyguards of then Naawan mayor Sulpicio Laranjo.
Arcie did not immediately inform Felix of Abitona’s identity, but Arcie told his mother Conchita that Alex Abitona was responsible for the shooting.
The neighbors heard the shots, and Felix sought assistance from Barangay Captain Tirso Perpetua, who together with his wife Leonisa went to the police detachment to report the incident.
Because the police allegedly took no action, Felix borrowed a vehicle from the parish church to bring Arcie and Gina to the hospital in Iligan City.
Lydia Dagiaposo, a neighbor, saw three armed persons coming from the direction of Arsenito’s house, and she identified two of them as Abitona and Lito Cruz.
Lydia did not report what she saw until after Arsenito was buried, and Felix claimed his attempts to follow up the complaint failed due to alleged police inaction.
A report was filed with the NBI through Agent Justiniano O. Parras on July 14, 1986, but the informations for murder and two frustrated murders were filed only on October 16, 1987.
Abitona denied participation in the shooting, and he invoked alibi that he and Lito Cruz were at the municipal building during the incident.

Defense Theory and Contentions

Abitona claimed that at the time of the shooting he was at the municipal building about two kilometers from Linangcayan, an area that witnesses stated could be reached by jeep within about ten minutes.
Abitona asserted that a standing threat of attack by the New People’s Army required him and Cruz to remain at the municipal building.
Abitona denied that he was Mayor Laranjo’s bodyguard, although he admitted he was allowed to carry firearms and to move with the army, police, or PC to critical areas.
Abitona’s alibi was corroborated by witnesses Chief of Police Hilario Badal and then Naawan mayor Sulpicio Laranjo, both of whom were billeted at the municipal building due to a red alert situation.
In his appeal, Abitona argued that he should be acquitted based on the acquittal of his co-accused Lito Cruz, contending that the evidence used to convict him was the same evidence that acquitted Cruz.
Abitona also argued that he was never seen firing a gun.
Abitona challenged the weight of Arcie’s testimony by invoking Arcie’s tender age and the lapse of four years before the boy actually testified.
Abitona contended that the prosecution failed to establish intent to kill as to Arcie and Gina, and failed to prove that they sustained gunshot wounds.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The Court had to determine whether the RTC correctly found Abitona’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite Abitona’s denial and alibi.
The Court had to resolve whether Abitona’s guilt could be negated by the acquittal of Lito Cruz.
The Court had to assess whether Arcie’s identification and testimony were reliable given his age and the timing of his testimony.
The Court had to determine whether the prosecution established the intent to kill and the fact of injuries inflicted on Arcie and Gina.
The Court also had to classify the offenses properly by evaluating the presence or failure of alleged qualifying circumstances and the effect of unalleged aggravating circumstances on the penalties.

Statutory and Legal Principles Applied

The Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in computing penalties after determining the proper nature of the offenses.
The Court treated the relevant circumstances affecting criminal liability as qualifying or aggravating, with consequences on the correct designation of the offenses.
The Court applied generic aggravating treatment to circumstances that wer