G.R. No. 116719 - People vs. Amigo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 116719)

Factual Background

On December 29, 1989, at about 1:00 P.M., Benito Ng Suy was driving a Ford Fiera with family members along the National Highway of Bajada, Davao City. An orange Toyota Tamaraw driven by Virgilio Abogada, with Patricio Amigo seated as passenger, executed an unexpected left turn and the two vehicles collided. After the minor collision, Benito and Virgilio alighted and verbally confronted one another. Patricio Amigo intervened and, following a brief exchange in which Benito identified himself as Chinese, returned, drew a five-inch knife, and stabbed Benito repeatedly. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds, was transported to San Pedro Hospital, later airlifted to Manila and confined at the Chinese General Hospital, and after several weeks of treatment died. The post-operative cause of death was recorded as sepsis following multiple stab wounds.

Procedural History

An initial Information charged Patricio Amigo with frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 5, Revised Penal Code; the accused pleaded not guilty. After the victim subsequently died, the prosecution filed an amended Information charging murder. The case proceeded to trial on the merits in the court a quo, which found Patricio Amigo guilty of murder and imposed penalties and civil indemnities. The accused appealed, contesting principally the penalty imposed in light of constitutional and statutory developments.

Trial Court's Decision

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, with no modifying circumstance present. The court sentenced Patricio Amigo to reclusion perpetua and ordered payment of costs. The court awarded actual damages in the amount of P93,214.70, compensatory damages of P50,000.00, and moral damages of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim.

Accused-Appellant's Contentions

Patricio Amigo argued that at the time of the offense Art. III, Sec. 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution had already abolished the death penalty and therefore the death penalty was not imposable. He maintained that the correct computation of the penalty for murder without modifying circumstances should descend from reclusion perpetua and result in reclusion temporal in its medium period, specifically 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal, under Art. 64, par. 1, Revised Penal Code and the appellant’s reading of constitutional effect prior to the promulgation of Republic Act No. 7659.

Government's Narrative of Events

The Office of the Solicitor General summarized the evidence establishing that an accidental vehicular collision precipitated a verbal confrontation, that Patricio Amigo initiated hostilities by repeatedly addressing the victim’s ethnicity, that he subsequently stabbed Benito multiple times with a knife, that despite pleas for mercy and the presence of bystanders no one intervened until the assailant fled, and that the victim ultimately died of sepsis resulting from the multiple stab wounds after prolonged hospitalization and surgery.

Issues Presented

The central issue was whether the penalty imposed by the trial court — reclusion perpetua for murder under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code — was proper in view of Art. III, Sec. 19(1), 1987 Constitution, which prohibits imposition of the death penalty and provides that if already imposed it shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua, and in light of the jurisprudential debate over whether the constitutional provision also altered the other periods of penal liability for murder.

Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning

The Court examined prior decisions, including People v. Munoz (170 SCRA 107 [1989]) and the line of cases addressing the effect of Article III, Section 19(1) on the penalty scheme of Art. 248. The Court noted the earlier division of view in decisions such as Gavarra, Masangkay, Atencio, and Intino, and recounted the reconsideration in Munoz which returned to the original interpretation that the constitutional provision merely prohibited the imposition of the death penalty and reduced any existing imposition to reclusion perpetua, but did not alter the statutory ranges of the other penalty periods prescribed in Art. 248. The Court acknowledged potential inequities produced by that interpretation but emphasized that the resolution of such policy questions lies with the legislature and not with the judiciary.

Application to the Present Case and Disposition

Applying the settled rule that Art. III, Sec. 19(1), 1987 Constitution does not change the statutory minimum and medium periods prescribed by Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, except to eliminate death and reduce it to reclusion perpetua, the Court found no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case. The Court therefore concluded that the applicable sentence for the murder committed by Patricio Amigo was the medium period of the penalty prescribed by Art. 248, which the Court confirmed remains reclusion p

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 116719)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted the case at the trial court and appealed the sentence was sought by the accused-appellant through a reversal petition to this Court.
PATRICIO AMIGO alias BEBOT was the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty at trial and later challenged the penalty imposed on appeal.
The accused was initially charged by Information with frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code and was later charged by amended Information with murder after the victim died.
The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered indemnity and damages to the heirs.
The accused appealed from the trial court decision contending that the applicable penalty was modified by Sec. 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution and that reclusion temporal in its medium period should apply.

Key Factual Allegations

The victim, Benito Ng Suy, was driving a Ford Fiera on December 29, 1989 when his vehicle collided with an orange Tamaraw driven by Virgilio Abogada which made an abrupt left turn.
After the collision, a verbal confrontation ensued between the drivers while the accused-appellant, a passenger of the Tamaraw, intervened and provoked the victim with ethnic taunts by asking if he was Chinese.
The accused returned shortly thereafter, produced a five-inch knife, and stabbed the victim repeatedly in the chest and other parts of the body despite the victim's attempts to flee and the pleas of his daughter for mercy.
The victim suffered multiple stab wounds, underwent emergency surgery, was airlifted to Manila and confined at the Chinese General Hospital, and thereafter died of sepsis after weeks of treatment.
Eyewitnesses and the victim's daughter testified to the accused's attack, flight from the scene, and the failure of bystanders to intervene during the assault.

Charges and Informations

The original Information charged frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code and described multiple penetrating stab wounds to vital organs.
An amended Information charged murder alleging that the multiple wounds inflicted by the accused caused the victim's death and the consequent loss and damage to the heirs.
The accused pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial on the merits resulting in conviction under the amended Information.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and expressly found no modifying circumstances in his favor.
The trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered the payment of costs and indemnity to the offended party in the amounts of P93,214.70 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as compensatory damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The sentencing rationale by the trial court was premised on the finding of treachery, evident premeditation, and intent to kill as charged in the Information.

Issues Presented

The principal legal issue was whether the trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua as penalty when Sec. 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution had abolished