G.R. No. 177751 - People vs. Agacer

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177751)

Procedural History and Decision Under Review

The Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Regional Trial Court’s conviction of appellants for the murder of Cesario Agacer, with specified modifications adopted in the December 14, 2011 decision (deletion of actual damages; award of P25,000 temperate damages; 6% interest from finality). Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and treachery, the failure to appreciate minority for appellant Franklin, and asserting intervening facts regarding the death of appellant Florencio.

Issues Presented for Resolution

The Court framed the issues as: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish conspiracy and treachery in the commission of the crime; (2) whether the mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated for appellant Franklin; and (3) whether the prior death of appellant Florencio extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities.

Reiteration of Arguments and Standards for Reconsideration

The Court declined to re-examine in detail appellants’ reasserted arguments on conspiracy and treachery because those contentions merely reiterated points already raised, considered, and resolved in the challenged decision. Citing authority (People v. Larrañaga; Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco), the Court noted that a motion for reconsideration that only rehashes previous arguments does not present a new issue needing further judicial determination and thus need not be relitigated at length.

Minority of Franklin — Factual Finding

The Court accepted a National Statistics Office Certificate of Live Birth showing that Franklin Agacer was born on December 20, 1981, which established that he was 16 years old at the time of the homicide (April 2, 1998). The Court held that this proof, though belatedly presented and not introduced at trial, was sufficient and would not prejudice the State, victim, or heirs.

Legal Effect of Minority — Applicable Provision and Rationale

Applying Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court concluded that Franklin, being a minor over 15 and under 18 at the time of the offense, was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. The Court explained the statutory rationale: because of his age the offender is presumed to have acted with less discernment, justifying imposition of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law.

Penalty Adjustment for Franklin — Application of Indeterminate Sentence Law

The Court analyzed penalties: murder carries reclusion perpetua to death; the next lower degree is reclusion temporal. Finding no aggravating or ordinary mitigating circumstances, the Court determined the proper maximum penalty for Franklin to be reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 8 months, 1 day to 17 years, 4 months). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor, medium period (8 years, 1 day to 10 years), and because of the crime’s seriousness the Court imposed punishment at the most severe range. Consequently, the sentence was modified to a minimum of ten (10) years of prision mayor in its medium period and a maximum of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Effect of Florencio’s Death on Criminal and Civil Liability

The Court addressed the death of appellant Florencio, as notified by the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison by letter dated June 8, 2012, which included a Certificate of Death indicating cardio-pulmonary arrest secondary to status asthmaticus as cause. (The record also contains a notation indicating death as of February 7, 2007.) Relying on Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and settled authority (e.g., De Guzman v. People; People v. Bayotas), the Court held that the death of a convict prior to final judgment totally extinguishes criminal liability as to personal penalties and extinguishes pecuniary penalties when death occurs before final judgment. Because Florencio died before final judgment and the Court had not been timely informed of his death when the prior decision issued, the Court declared both his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto extinguished and set aside the conviction insofar as it concerned him.

Disposition and Modifications to Prior Judgment

The Court granted the Motion f

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 177751)

Citation and Court

Reported at 701 Phil. 37; 109 OG No. 4, 404 (January 28, 2013); 109 OG No. 40, 6770 (October 7, 2013).
Decided by the Special First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
G.R. No. 177751; Decision rendered January 7, 2013, with a prior Decision of December 14, 2011 being the subject of the Motion for Reconsideration.
Opinion authored by Justice Del Castillo; concurrence by Leonardo‑De Castro (Acting Chairperson), Bersamin, Abad, and Villarama, Jr., JJ.
Notation that Florencio Agacer is deceased as of February 7, 2007; Erick/“Eric” spelling appears inconsistently in the records.

Procedural Posture and Chronology

Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Aparri, Cagayan) rendered an August 7, 2001 Decision finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
Court of Appeals affirmed in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01543 on November 17, 2006.
Supreme Court rendered a Decision on December 14, 2011 affirming the Court of Appeals with modifications (deletion of actual damages; award of P25,000.00 temperate damages to heirs; 6% interest from finality).
Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s December 14, 2011 Decision.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was required to comment, and the New Bilibid Prison informed the Court by letter dated June 8, 2012 that Florencio had died, supported by a Certificate of Death.
Supreme Court issued a Resolution on January 7, 2013 partially granting the Motion for Reconsideration with the modifications described in this syllabus.

Parties

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Accused-Appellants: Florencio Agacer (deceased), Eddie Agacer, Elynor Agacer, Franklin Agacer, and Eric/Erick Agacer.
Victim: Cesario Agacer; heirs of Cesario Agacer are the recipients of the civil damages awarded.

Issues Presented for Resolution

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish conspiracy among the appellants in the commission of the crime.
Whether treachery was proved in the commission of the killing.
Whether the mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin Agacer.
Whether the death of appellant Florencio extinguished his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto.

Summary of Appellants’ Arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration

Appellants contended that mere presence at the scene of the crime does not establish conspiracy.
Appellants argued there was no treachery because the killing was preceded by a heated argument.
Appellants asserted that, even if guilt were established, Franklin (claimed to have been born December 21, 1981) was a minor at the time of the incident and thus entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

Court’s Treatment of Reiterated Arguments

The Court stated that the appellants’ contention regarding insufficiency of evidence to prove conspiracy and treachery was a reiteration of arguments already raised, considered, weighed and resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered.
The Court held that such reiterated arguments in a Motion for Reconsideration do not require a new judicial determination and that re‑ruling on them would be a useless formality.
The Court cited prior jurisprudence (People v. Larrañaga; Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco) to support the principle that repetitive claims already adjudicated need not be re‑examined in a motion for reconsideration.

Evidence and Determination on Minority (Franklin)

The OSG did not oppose the appreciation of minority for Franklin and expressly agreed that minority should be considered, submitting a copy of Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth from the National Statistics Office.
Appellants initially claimed Franklin was born on December 21, 1981; the Certificate of Live Birth presented shows a birth date of December 20, 1981.
The Court found Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth establishing that he was born on December 20, 1981 and hence was sixteen (16) years old at the time of the commission of the crime on April 2, 1998.
The Court concluded that Franklin is therefore entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article 68(2) of the Revised P