G.R. No. 84612 - People vs. Avila

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84612)

Factual Background

At about 5:30 a.m. on October 23, 1985, along the national highway in Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Diosdado Avila shot Governor Gregorio P. Murillo in the head while the Governor sat in his car, resulting in instantaneous death; Mrs. Murillo was in the vehicle but unharmed. Agapito Agrabio accompanied Avila at the scene. Aurelio Silvoza was not present, having remained in the hinterland due to illness. After the shooting Avila and Agrabio fled; Agrabio was apprehended on February 17, 1987, and Avila and Silvoza were captured on February 18, 1987. The evidence at trial established that the appellants belonged to the NPA “sparrow” or liquidating squad operating in Tandag, that Avila used the alias Commander Efren and served as team leader, and that Agrabio used the alias Commander Raymund and served as assistant team leader.

Trial Court Proceedings

An information for murder was filed against Avila, Agrabio and Silvoza charging conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation and deliberate intent to kill with use of a .45 caliber pistol. The three pleaded not guilty and, after trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision on July 12, 1988 convicting Avila and Agrabio of murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment with various civil damages, while acquitting Silvoza. The appellants timely appealed. Subsequent to the perfection of the appeal and after the trial court had forwarded the records to the Supreme Court, the trial judge dated and transmitted an "amended decision" finding rebellion on August 1, 1988; the Supreme Court later held that the trial court had lost jurisdiction upon perfection of the appeal and that the amended decision had no legal force.

Issue Presented

The dispositive issue was whether the killing of Governor Murillo by Avila and Agrabio constituted the crime of murder or whether it was an act committed in furtherance of rebellion and therefore punishable under Articles 134 and 135, Revised Penal Code.

Parties' Contentions

The People of the Philippines urged affirmance of the trial court's murder conviction. The accused-appellants contended that the killing was politically motivated, that they acted as members of the NPA liquidating squad, and that the shooting was executed pursuant to orders from their superior, Commander Celo, as part of rebel objectives; they therefore argued the appropriate crime was rebellion, not murder.

Supreme Court's Disposition

The Court modified the appealed decision of July 12, 1988 by setting aside the murder conviction and finding Diosdado Avila and Agapito Agrabio guilty of rebellion under Article 135, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 6968. The Court sentenced them to suffer reclusion temporal in its medium period, fixed the term from fourteen years, eight months and one day to seventeen years and four months, and ordered them to indemnify, solidarily, the heirs of Governor Murillo in the amount of P50,000.00. The other items of damages awarded by the trial court were set aside.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court found that the evidence showed the killing was politically motivated and executed by members of the NPA liquidating squad pursuant to orders from a superior. Relying on the reasoning in People v. Manglallan (G.R. No. L-38538), the Court held that a killing committed as a means to advance rebel objectives and effected by insurgents acting under command constitutes rebellion, not murder. The Court observed that at the time of the offense P.D. 1834 imposed reclusion perpetua to death for both leaders and participants in rebellion, but that pending appeal R.A. 6968 was enacted, distinguishing penalties between leaders and mere participants. Applying Article 22, Revised Penal Code, which mandates retroactive effect of penal laws insofar as they favor the accused, the Court applied the more lenient penalty scheme of R.A. 6968 to the appellants, who fell within the second group of participants who merely executed commands. The Court found no aggravating or mitigating circumstance and applied the rule in Article 64, Revised Penal Code to impose the penalty in its medium period.

Penalty and Damages

Because the appellants were classified under the second paragraph of Article 135, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 6968, the Court imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, the legal range being fourteen years, eight months and one day to seventeen years and four months pursuant to Article 76 and the tabular provisions of the Revised Penal Code. The Court awarded an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Governor Murillo, to be paid solidarily by the appellants, and set aside the trial court's other awards of P6,000.00, P10,000.00, P30,000.00, P25,000.00 and P10,000.00 as improper in a rebellion case.

Jurisdictional Defect in the Amended RTC Decision

The Court held that under Section 7, Rule 120, Rules of Court a judgment of conviction m

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 84612)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE prosecuted an information for murder against DIOSDADO AVILA, AGAPITO AGRABIO, and AURELIO SILVOZA.
DIOSDADO AVILA and AGAPITO AGRABIO appealed from their conviction for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Branch 27.
The Regional Trial Court initially convicted the appellants of murder and later issued an amended decision finding them guilty of rebellion after the appeal had been perfected.
The Supreme Court exercised its authority under Sec. 5, par. 2(d), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution to review the appealed decision.

Key Factual Allegations

The victim was Governor Gregorio P. Murillo who was shot while seated in his car at about 5:30 a.m. on 23 October 1985 along the national highway in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.
DIOSDADO AVILA fired a .45 caliber pistol at the governor and inflicted a fatal gunshot wound to the head while AGAPITO AGRABIO accompanied him.
AURELIO SILVOZA was not present at the scene because he was in the hinterland ill and resting.
The appellants admitted membership in a liquidating squad of the New People’s Army and testified that they acted under orders from their NPA superior, one Commander Celo.

Procedural History

The trial court rendered judgment on 12 July 1988 convicting the appellants of murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment with awards of multiple items of damages.
The appellants timely perfected their appeal and the trial court forwarded the record to the Supreme Court on 3 August 1988.
The trial court purported to issue an amended decision dated 1 August 1988, finding the accused guilty of rebellion, but the amended decision was promulgated after the appeal had been perfected and after the record had been forwarded to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court received the original decision and the amended decision and ruled that the amended decision had no legal force because the trial court had lost jurisdiction upon perfection of the appeal pursuant to Section 7, Rule 120, Rules of Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the appellants committed the crime of murder or the crime of rebellion.
Whether the trial court could validly amend its judgment after the perfection of the appeal.
What penalty and damages are proper if the appellants are found guilty of rebellion.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court concluded that the killing was not rebellion because there was no evidence of an ongoing uprising or combat between rebels and government forces at the