G.R. No. 154348-50 - People vs. Dela Cruz

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154348-50)

Factual Background

On the date in question, Felipe Pajunar testified that he went to the Sta. Catalina public market to buy biscuits and candies for his child’s exchange gift. He was later summoned by his cousin, Paulino Tabuay, to join their group for a round of local wine (tuba). Present in the group were Victoriano Francisco and Agaton Rubia, and the men sat outside a store owned by Julie Calidquid. While the group conversed, two unidentified men approached. One of them was later identified as appellant Pablo dela Cruz. Appellant asked Paulino for a glass of tuba. Paulino offered the drink, but appellant refused it after claiming it might contain poison. To prove otherwise, Paulino drank the glass and refilled it for appellant, who then drank without hesitation. Appellant then joined the group, sitting with Felipe on his right and Victoriano on his left.

Suddenly, appellant placed his right arm around Felipe’s shoulder and stabbed him with a hunting knife. As appellant stabbed him, he whispered, “Pinaskuhan nako nimo Brod,” described by Felipe as appellant’s Christmas “gift.” Felipe was wounded on his left chest, fell down, and immediately thereafter appellant turned to Victoriano and stabbed him. Victoriano was rushed to the Bayawan District Hospital and was declared dead on arrival. Felipe later learned the attacker’s name was Pablo dela Cruz and identified him in open court. Felipe further testified that, as a result of the incident, he was unable to work for almost a year and incurred expenses supported by receipts for medicines totaling P1,600.00, and claimed P10,000.00 for hospitalization and travel expenses.

William Tacaldo testified that he earned his living from typing services in one of the market stalls. On the day of the incident, he was typing a church program for Juan Florencio when commotion erupted about two meters away. He continued typing until he was suddenly stabbed right below his heart. He stood up, pressed his wound to control bleeding, and called for help. He was taken to the Bayawan District Hospital and later transferred to the Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital where he was operated on. Tacaldo admitted that during the incident he failed to recognize the person who stabbed him because he was focused on his typing. During police investigation, he learned the assailant’s name. He testified that he lost his eyesight and could no longer type, causing loss of daily income of around P200.00 to P250.00.

Juan Florencio corroborated the material parts of the witnesses’ account. He stated that on December 15, 1995, he was in a stall dictating a document to Tacaldo. He saw Felipe, Victoriano, and two other persons drinking at a store about two meters away. Shortly thereafter, a commotion occurred. Florencio saw Felipe being stabbed by a person he later learned was appellant. Appellant stabbed Victoriano, who fell unconscious. Florencio then narrated that appellant stabbed Tacaldo while Tacaldo was seated before his typewriter. After stabbing Tacaldo, appellant attacked Florencio. Florencio ran away. Appellant was able to catch up and stabbed Florencio on the back, but Florencio escaped further harm. Florencio was treated at the Bayawan District Hospital.

The police investigation supported identification and apprehension. PO3 Rolando Gomez testified that he heard people shouting, observed persons scampering, and saw appellant running away brandishing a hunting knife. He chased appellant, fired a warning shot, but appellant instead turned and attacked Gomez. Gomez shot appellant on the left thigh. Gomez confiscated the hunting knife and brought appellant to the Sta. Catalina Police Station, where PO3 Louie Bantuto conducted an investigation. Bantuto corroborated that an investigation was conducted upon appellant’s arrival at the police station and that the stabbing incident was recorded in the police blotter, which was presented in court.

Medical and Other Evidence

The prosecution presented Dr. Lydia Villaflores to testify regarding the death and injuries sustained by the victims. She testified that Victoriano Francisco had a two-inch incised wound on the anterior chest and a similar wound on the arm. The chest wound was fatal because it damaged blood vessels in the abdomen, causing massive blood loss. Victoriano was pronounced dead on arrival. She also testified that Felipe sustained an incised wound at the left side of the lumbar area, fatal due to its location on the anterior chest. William Tacaldo sustained an incised wound on the anterior chest and another on the arm; the anterior chest wound was dangerous and could have caused instantaneous death if untreated. Juan Florencio sustained an incised wound on the left lumbar area.

Dr. Henrissa M. Calumpang examined Felipe and opined that Felipe’s wound was superficial and not fatal, and thus could not cause instantaneous death. Regarding Tacaldo, she testified that Tacaldo’s wound was fatal because it penetrated the abdominal and thoracic cavities, and that accumulation of blood in the abdominal cavity caused shock due to blood loss.

Evangeline Mira, daughter of Victoriano, testified on burial-related expenditures, stating that the family spent P30,000.00 for the coffin and embalment, P1,000.00 per day for the wake for nine days, P6,000.00 for burial expenses, P10,000.00 for the tombstone, P6,000.00 for the last prayer, and P400.00 for funeral mass.

Defense Evidence and Appellant’s Position

Appellant testified and admitted that he inflicted wounds on Tacaldo and another person who boxed him outside the market on December 15, 1995. However, he denied involvement in Victoriano’s death and in Felipe’s wounding on the date of the incident, claiming he did not even know them. Appellant testified that he went to the public market to buy fish, but was boxed by a drunken person he recognized by face and with whom he had previous altercations. Appellant claimed that after being boxed he ducked under a table, and when he came out he saw a butcher’s knife and picked it up to ward off his attackers.

To support a claim of mental condition, the defense presented Dr. Angel V. Somera, who testified that appellant was essentially normal and non-psychotic. Somera described a certain degree of paranoia, which he said might be attributable to education level and living conditions, but he maintained that appellant was not insane. The defense also recalled PO3 Louie Bantuto to testify about appellant’s mental condition during investigation. Bantuto admitted that appellant’s appearance led him to note in the police blotter that appellant was mentally ill and that appellant had bottles containing oil around his waist at the police station.

Trial Court Rulings and Sentences

The trial court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in each case. In Criminal Case No. 12445, the court found appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. In Criminal Case No. 12446, the court found him guilty of frustrated murder and sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an indeterminate penalty of Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as minimum to Fourteen (14) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. In Criminal Case No. 12452, the court also found him guilty of frustrated murder with the same indeterminate penalty range. The trial court further ordered appellant to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Victoriano’s heirs and P1,495.60 as actual damages to Felipe.

Issues on Appeal and Parties’ Contentions

Appellant assigned only one error, asserting that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The discussion in appellant’s brief, however, focused on the trial court’s appreciation of treachery. Appellant argued that treachery was not present because the victims should have been put on guard when appellant approached them. Felipe and Victoriano were not surprised in the manner required by treachery, and Tacaldo had noticed the commotion earlier, thereby having time to prepare and defend himself. Appellant thus prayed that he be convicted of lesser offenses, such as homicide, frustrated homicide, and attempted homicide, corresponding to each case.

The prosecution, consistent with the trial court’s appreciation, argued that the totality of circumstances showed that all victims were caught unaware and unable to defend themselves because appellant deliberately chose a mode of attack that ensured the achievement of his violent intentions with minimal risk to himself.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Treachery and Identification

The Court found that the evidence on record established appellant’s responsibility for Victoriano’s death and for the wounding of Felipe and Tacaldo. Felipe’s recollection of the events was described as direct, spontaneous, and consistent. The Court emphasized that Felipe’s positive identification of appellant in open court was unerring and was corroborated by the testimony of Juan Florencio, who testified that he saw appellant stab Felipe and then Victoriano before stabbing Tacaldo and himself. The Court also found it had not been shown that Felipe or Juan Florencio had any motivation to testify falsely; it noted that Felipe did not personally know appellant and learned appellant’s name during investigation, and that Florencio was not even a complainant though he was injured and still testified as to what he saw.

On the legal question of treachery, the Court restated the doctrine that treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specially to insure the execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. It reiterated that two requisites must concur: first, means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retal

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 154348-50)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines appealed from the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Branch 34 in Criminal Case Nos. 12445, 12446 and 12452.
The appellant was Pablo Dela Cruz alias Pablito Dela Cruz.
The trial court found appellant guilty of Murder in Criminal Case No. 12445, and guilty of two counts of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case Nos. 12446 and 12452.
The appellant advanced a lone assignment of error claiming that the trial court gravely erred in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite an alleged failure to prove his guilt as charged.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the convictions, but corrected the degree of culpability for the stabbing of Felipe Pajunar.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecutions stemmed from a single incident on December 15, 1995 at about 11:00 oclock in the morning at the public market of Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental.
In Criminal Case No. 12445, appellant was charged with Murder for stabbing Victoriano Francisco, an 81-year-old sickly man, with a hunting knife, causing injuries that led to death.
In Criminal Case No. 12446, appellant was charged with Frustrated Murder for stabbing Felipe Pajunar with the same type of weapon, with the murder result allegedly prevented by timely medical attendance.
In Criminal Case No. 12452, appellant was charged with Frustrated Murder for stabbing William Tacaldo, with the crime allegedly not consummated because of timely medical treatment.
The Informations alleged treachery and evident premeditation in all cases, with disregard of respect due the offended party on account of age as an aggravating circumstance in the charge involving William Tacaldo.

Trial Evidence and Witness Testimony

Felipe Pajunar testified that he went to the market and joined a group drinking tuba with Victoriano Francisco and Agaton Rubia, seated near a store.
Felipe testified that two unidentified men approached and that appellant, whom Felipe later identified as Pablo dela Cruz, asked for tuba.
Felipe testified that appellant first refused the offered glass on the suspicion of poison, but drank after Paulino drank and refilled the glass.
Felipe testified that appellant then sat with him and stabbed him by placing his right arm around him, whispering “Pinaskuhan nako nimo Brod. (This is my Christmas gift to you, Brod.)”.
Felipe testified that he was stabbed in the left chest and fell, and that appellant immediately turned to stab Victoriano.
Felipe testified that Victoriano was rushed to the Bayawan District Hospital and declared dead on arrival.
Felipe testified to his identification of appellant in open court and claimed pecuniary loss including inability to work and expenses for medicine and hospitalization.
William Tacaldo testified that he earned his living from typing services in the market and was typing a church program when he was suddenly stabbed right below his heart.
Tacaldo testified that he was unable to recognize his assailant at the time because he was focused on his typing, but he learned the name of the assailant during the police investigation.
Tacaldo testified that he was later operated on and that he suffered long-term injury affecting his eyesight and ability to type, resulting in lost income.
Juan Florencio, a stall occupant who corroborated the stabbing sequence, testified that he saw appellant stab Felipe, then Victoriano, and thereafter stab Tacaldo while Tacaldo was seated in front of his typewriter.
Florencio testified that appellant also stabbed Florencio on the back after Florencio attempted to run, but Florencio escaped further harm.
PO3 Rolando Gomez testified that he witnessed appellant running away brandishing a hunting knife and that he chased him with a warning shot.
Gomez testified that appellant turned and attacked PO3 Gomez, prompting Gomez to shoot appellant on the left thigh.
PO3 Louie Bantuto testified that he conducted an investigation after appellant was brought to the police station and that the incident was recorded in a police blotter presented in court.
Dr. Lydia Villaflores testified on the bodies and injuries: Victoriano sustained incised wounds that were fatal due to blood vessel damage and massive blood loss, while Felipe had an incised wound described as fatal depending on its location, and Tacaldo had dangerous chest and other wounds.
Dr. Henrissa M. Calumpang testified for the defense regarding the injuries of Felipe and Tacaldo, stating that Felipe’s wound was superficial, non-fatal, and would not cause instantaneous death, while Tacaldo’s wound penetrated thoracoabdominal cavities and was fatal.
Evangeline Mira, Victoriano’s daughter, testified on funeral and wake expenses.
Appellant testified in his defense and admitted inflicting wounds on Tacaldo and another person during the market incident, but denied involvement in Victoriano’s death and in Felipe’s wounding.
Appellant claimed he was boxed by a drunken person he recognized by face, ducked under a table, and picked up a butcher’s knife to ward off attackers.
The defense presented medical evidence through Dr. Angel V. Somera that appellant was non-psychotic and thus sane, though he exhibited a degree of paranoia.
PO3 Bantuto admitted that appellant was observed in the police investigation as mentally ill based on appellant’s appearance.

Issues on Appeal

The principal issue concerned appellant’s degree of culpability, specifically whether treachery attended the stabbings and whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offenses.
A further issue required the Court to determine whether the stabbing of Felipe Pajunar warranted conviction for Frustrated Murder or a lesser offense, considering medical testimony on the nature and consequences of the wound.

Doctrine on Treachery

The Court reiterated the test for treachery: means, methods, or forms in execution that tend to ensure the crime’s execution with minimum risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make.
The Court held that treachery requires concurrence of: (a) means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (b) deliberate and conscious adoption of that method.
The Court explained that treachery’s essence lies in a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without provocation.
The Court also emphasized that even if a victim is warned of possibl