G.R. No. 71461 - People vs. Caricungan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71461)

Factual Background of the Killing

The trial court found, based on the prosecution’s evidence, that at approximately 7:00 p.m. on April 26, 1983, Primo Milanes, then Chief of Barangay Tanod, together with Barangay Captain Ernesto Ordonez and other community members (Enrique Orbiso, Paquito Leonen, Benigno Bulatao, and Santos Ordones) were inside the house of Leonardo de Guzman in barangay Tombod while discussing matters about improvements in the community. The accused, particularly Anastacio Caricungan and his son Mario, allegedly shouted words to the effect of “rumuar ti malalaki” (those who are tough men come out).

Milanes went out to confront the shouters, followed by Ernesto Ordonez, Santos Ordonez, and other members. When Milanes was about two to three meters away, the accused—armed—were positioned such that Mario allegedly held a shotgun (Exhibit F), Anastacio held a short firearm (Exhibit H), Martiniano (Idring) held a short firearm (Exhibit G), and Winnie allegedly carried a piece of wood. Milanes asked why they were shouting. Anastacio replied that since they were already involved in trouble, they should continue with it. Anastacio then allegedly shot Milanes using a homemade armalite (Exhibit H).

After the shooting, Milanes fell and lay prostrated. The trial court found that Mario, Idring, and Winnie then simultaneously attacked and struck the victim on the head and other parts of his body. The accused then ran away. Shortly thereafter, community members brought Milanes to the clinic of Dr. Banez in Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan, but the victim died. The incident was reported to the police, and law enforcement officers conducted the investigation, recovered evidence, and documented statements of witnesses.

Police Investigation, Evidence, and Medical Findings

Following the report, police officers proceeded to the clinic where Milanes was already dead and then to the barangay scene. During spot investigation, the police recovered a bolt housing of a shotgun (Exhibit A) and a piece of wood. The police also located witnesses including Arturo Cariaga, Enrique Orbizo, and Barangay Captain Ernesto Ordonez, who gave written statements (Exhibits C, D, and E series).

The accused were not immediately found at their houses. On April 29, 1983, they surrendered to the police through Councilor Divina dela Cruz. On the following day, April 30, 1983, Mario and Winnie allegedly gave written statements (Exhibits J and K). They also allegedly informed the police that the firearms used in the killing were kept at Palina Central, Urdaneta, Pangasinan. On May 2, 1983, the police accompanied by Mario went to Palina Central and, in the house of Narciso Bautista and Arturo Armendez, recovered: Exhibit F (shotgun with one unspent bullet), Exhibit G (a .22 caliber firearm with eight live ammunitions), and Exhibit H (homemade armalite caliber 5.56 millimeter with one live ammunition). The police also allegedly found short and long bullets of caliber .22 (Exhibits L and M series).

An autopsy request was made on April 27, 1983, and Dr. Elpidio Aggasid conducted the examination. The medical findings included multiple lacerated wounds and gunshot wound injuries. The internal findings included a gunshot wound penetrating the descending colon and a slug embedded at the sacrum, as well as multiple fracture of the skull and blood clots over the brain. The cause of death was stated as shock due to cerebral hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound. The doctor also stated that certain lacerated wounds were caused by blunt instruments like the butt of a gun, and that fatal injuries included those involving depressed skull fractures affecting the brain, and massive hemorrhage.

Defenses Raised by the Accused

All four accused invoked alibi and denial during trial. Their defenses conflicted not only with the prosecution’s account but also among themselves, with each allegedly pointing accusation toward the others.

Anastacio claimed he never left his house throughout the evening of April 26, 1983, and said that when authorities attempted to apprehend him, he was not home. He also claimed that Mario, Winnie, and Edring admitted to him that they had killed Primo Milanes, and that he surrendered only because he was under arrest.

Winnie’s account differed substantially. She supposedly stated that Anastacio told him he shot a Primo Milanes in Tombod. She claimed she was walking behind Mario and accompanying Anastacio while Mario surrendered for another shooting incident involving Mamerto Orbizo.

Martiniano (Edring) allegedly testified that he suspected prosecution witness Ordonez implicated him for money. He claimed he only went to Villasis to build a rooster pen for his uncle and did not know his uncle would kill Primo. When Primo was shot, he claimed he was at his daughter-in-law’s place.

Mario asserted that he shot Mamerto Orbizo about twenty minutes before seven o’clock on the same day and that his companions at the shooting were Anastacio and Winnie. After the Orbizo shooting, Mario, Anastacio, and Winnie allegedly went home. Mario stated that later his father asked him to go “east” to evade arrest, and that on their way “east,” Anastacio shot Primo Milanes. Mario claimed he had no idea his father would shoot Primo. He also stated that he ran away when he heard a gunshot and that his father was about three meters from Primo while Mario was about seven meters away. Mario further claimed Anastacio later followed him to his house and told them to go into hiding in case Milanes’ family sought revenge.

Trial Court’s Conviction and Issues on Appeal

The trial court convicted all four accused as principals of Direct Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Murder, as charged. It found Primo Milanes to be an agent of a person in authority acting in his official duty. The court also found the presence of treachery (alevosia) and additional qualifying circumstances of taking advantage of superior strength and with aid of armed men. It accordingly imposed the death penalty. It also ordered indemnity jointly and severally to the heirs of Primo Milanes for P4,000.00 as actual damages and P30,000.00 as moral damages.

On appeal, Anastacio Caricungan argued that the trial court erred in appreciating alevosia, in finding taking advantage of superior strength and with aid of armed men, in ruling that Milanes was an agent of a person in authority, and in failing to extend mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and the mitigating effect under par. 10, Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

The other appellants, Martiniano (Edring), Winnie, and Mario, assigned errors mainly on: the trial court’s holding that they participated in the killing; the trial court’s giving weight to allegedly incredible and inconsistent prosecution testimony; and the trial court’s purportedly erroneous rejection of non-participation, culminating in their conviction.

Appellants’ Contentions and the Appellate Court’s Evaluation of Evidence

The Court found no sufficient reason to overturn the conviction. It treated Anastacio’s shifting position as evidentiary support, noting that while his defense at trial was alibi, his appeal brief allegedly pleaded that “the crime be adjudged as simple homicide,” which the Court considered an admission that he killed the victim. The Court also noted that multiple people, including Barangay Captain Ernesto Ordonez and Enrique Orbizo, allegedly witnessed Anastacio’s shooting of Milanes. Further, Mario and Winnie allegedly identified Anastacio as the triggerman. In light of what the Court characterized as overwhelming evidence, the Court held that Anastacio’s alibi could not prevail. It also found that Anastacio, being a member of the barangay and living not far from Milanes, could not plausibly deny knowledge that Milanes was the Chief of Barangay Tanod and that Milanes was maintaining peace and order when killed.

On Anastacio’s claims of mitigating circumstances—particularly voluntary surrender and the mitigating effect under par. 10, Art. 13—the Court ruled that it could not find any basis from the records to appreciate these mitigating circumstances in his favor.

As to Mario, Winnie, and Martiniano, the Court relied on the Solicitor General’s position that attempts to discredit prosecution witnesses were futile because the appellants allegedly failed to show valid grounds that testimony was incredible or that there were material inconsistencies. The Court also observed that prosecution testimony was allegedly confirmed by physical facts and that appellants’ flight after the incident supported an inference of consciousness of guilt. While the Court acknowledged that the evidence against these three appellants might not be as overwhelming as that against Anastacio, it held it was still sufficient for conviction. The Court emphasized that several eyewitnesses allegedly testified that Mario, Winnie, and Martiniano actually struck the victim immediately after Anastacio had shot him. Witnesses included Barangay Captain Ernesto Ordonez, Enrique Orbizo, and Santos Ordonez. Based on those findings, the Court held that the killing was not perpetrated by Anastacio alone, but also with the help of the other accused-appellants.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court affirmed that all the elements necessary for conviction of Direct Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Murder were present as found by the trial court, including that the victim was a duly appointed agent of a person in authority acting in his official duty and that the manner of attack

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 71461)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines brought the prosecution as Plaintiff-Appellee against Anastacio Caricungan, Mario Caricungan, Martiniano Caricungan, and Winnie Caricungan as Accused-Appellants.
The case came to the Court by automatic review because the Regional Trial Court imposed the death penalty.
The Regional Trial Court, Region I, Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan promulgated the judgment on June 24, 1985 in Criminal Case No. L-2882.
The Court affirmed the conviction with modification to comply with the 1987 Constitution and to adjust moral damages.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that on or about 7:00 in the evening of April 26, 1983, in barangay Tombod, Villasis, Pangasinan, Pangasinan, the accused were armed with firearms and acted with intent to kill.
The information alleged that the accused acted conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with treachery, aid of armed men, and taking advantage of superior strength.
The accused were alleged to have shoot, attack, and assault Primo Milanes, a duly appointed and qualified Rural Police Chief, who was known to the accused in that capacity.
The information alleged that the assault caused Primo Milanes’s instantaneous death.
The incident was described as beginning when the accused shouted “rumuar ti malalaki” (those who are tough men come out) while barangay officials were inside the house of Leonardo de Guzman.

Prosecution Evidence Summary

The trial court found that Primo Milanes, as Chief of the Barangay Tanod, went out after hearing the accused’s shouts.
The trial court found that all the accused were armed, with Mario using a shotgun (Exhibit F), Anastacio using a short firearm (Exhibit H), and Martiniano (Idring) using a short firearm (Exhibit G).
The trial court found that Winnie held a piece of wood.
The trial court found that when Milanes was about 2 to 3 meters away, Milanes asked why the accused were shouting and Anastacio replied that since they were already involved in trouble, they should continue with it.
The trial court found that Anastacio shot Primo Milanes with a homemade armalite (Exhibit H).
The trial court found that after the victim fell and was prostrated, Mario, Idring, and Winnie simultaneously attacked and struck the victim on the head and other parts of the body.
The trial court found that when the victim was already lifeless, the accused all ran away.
The trial court found that witnesses later brought the victim to Dr. Banez’s clinic in Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan, but the victim did not survive.
The trial court found that Barangay Captain Ernesto Ordonez reported the incident to the police headquarters.
The police conducted spot investigation, recovered a bolt housing of a shotgun (Exh. A), and recovered a piece of wood.
The police gathered witness statements from Arturo Cariaga, Enrique Orbiso, and Barangay Captain Ernesto Ordonez (as reflected in Exhibits C, D, and E series).
The prosecution presented that the accused were identified after police learned their identities, but they were initially not found in their houses.
The prosecution presented that on April 29, 1983, the accused surrendered through Councilor Divina dela Cruz, and on April 30, 1983, Mario and Winnie executed written statements (as reflected in Exhibits J and K).
The prosecution presented that the accused informed police where the firearms were kept, and on May 2, 1983, police accompanied Mario to Palina Central, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, where firearms were found and marked as Exhibit F, Exhibit G, and Exhibit H, and additional bullets were found as Exhibits L and M series.

Medical and Physical Findings

The prosecution relied on an autopsy request made on April 27, 1983 by police to Dr. Elpidio Aggasid, MHO of Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan.
The autopsy findings included multiple lacerated wounds at the parrieto-occipital region, pina of the right ear, right temporal region, and mandible region.
The autopsy findings included a gunshot wound with collar contusion.
The autopsy findings included an internal gunshot wound that penetrated the descending colon, with a slug embedded at the sacrum.
The autopsy findings included multiple fracture of the skull on the parrieto-occipital region, with blood clots over the whole brain.
The cause of death was stated as shock due to cerebral hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound.
The autopsy indicated that the lacerated wounds were caused by blunt instruments like a butt of a gun, and the skull fracture resulted from force applied on the head using a blunt instrument like a gun’s butt.
The autopsy assessed that injury No. 1 and 5 were fatal wounds, citing depressed fracture affecting the brain and massive hemorrhage.

Identity and Relationship of Accused

The Court noted that Mario Caricungan was the son of Anastacio Caricungan.
The Court noted that Winnie Caricungan married Anastacio’s stepdaughter, Merly Ermita, and was considered by Anastacio as a son.
The Court noted that Edring Caricungan was the same person as Martiniano Caricungan.
The Court noted that Martiniano was an uncle’s nephew of Anastacio, as reflected in the trial court’s description.

Defense Theories Presented

All four accused presented alibi and denial during trial.
The Court found that their versions were not only conflicting but also involved accusing each other.
Anastacio claimed he did not leave his house and asserted that when authorities attempted to apprehend him on April 29, 1983, he was not home.
Anastacio also claimed that in later conversations Mario, Winnie, and Edring admitted that they had killed the victim, and that his surrender was due to being placed under arrest.
The Court found Winnie’s account to be sharply different from Anastacio’s narrative.
Winnie stated that Anastacio shot one Primo Milanes, and that Winnie was walking behind Mario who was following Anastacio.
Winnie tied the presence of the group to Mario’s earlier shooting of Mamerto Orbizo and described Anastacio and Winnie as accompanying Mario as he surrendered for that other crime.
Martiniano (Edring) claimed he suspected that Ordonez implicated him because Ordonez thought he could obtain money from him.
Martiniano (Edring) stated that he went to Villasis to build a rooster pen for his uncle and denied any knowledge that his uncle would kill Milanes along the wa