G.R. No. 228886 - People vs. Flores

Case Summary (G.R. No. 228886)

Factual Background

At approximately 8:45 p.m. on December 25, 2002, Larry Parcon and Eduardo Mabini were traveling home aboard a motorcycle that ran out of fuel in front of a videoke bar in Barangay Tignoan, Real, Quezon. Larry told Eduardo to buy fuel and gave him money, after which Larry went inside the videoke bar.

When Larry was about to enter, Eduardo—standing an arm’s length away from the bar’s door—heard a commotion from inside. He decided to go inside and climb the stairs located in front of the bar to check. From that vantage point, Eduardo saw Larry “pacifying” Sammy and Daniel during their altercation, while Larry told them: “bakit kayo nag aaway, paskong pasko.” Suddenly, Rodel ran toward Larry and stabbed him. Eduardo shouted, “Why did you hit my boss?” After that, Sammy, Daniel, and Rodel turned to Eduardo and took turns punching him. Eduardo testified that Sammy attempted to stab him but failed because Eduardo had fallen down the stairs.

Eduardo further narrated that Sammy and Daniel went back to Larry and, using seven-inch double-blade knives, alternately stabbed Larry on the lower right and lower left sides of his body, while Charlie held Larry by the armpits. Eduardo also testified that Gary stabbed Larry on the head and that Belgar stabbed Larry on his right side. When the assailants fled through the back door, Eduardo sought help at the barangay hall. Larry was then boarded on a barangay tanod’s vehicle and rushed to the hospital, but was pronounced dead on arrival after sustaining five fatal stab wounds.

Larry’s wife Beverly Parcon testified regarding burial expenses and moral damages. She stated that Larry was a Philippine Army corporal earning P8,000.00 a month.

Defense Version

The accused-appellants denied the allegations. Sammy and Daniel, who were cousins, claimed that on the night of the incident they were at the house of the manager of their logging business, Sheryl Orozco, in Barangay Pagsanghan, General Nakar, Quezon at about 9:00 p.m., and that Sammy went home around midnight to sleep. Sheryl testified to corroborate that they were at her house that night. Charlie, on the other hand, claimed that he was with his wife Lonelyn Bantigue and his brother-in-law Jesus Bantigue in Sitio Pagitna, Rizal, Burdeos, Quezon, during the incident. Lonelyn corroborated Charlie’s claim that he was with her and Jesus at that time.

Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court

The RTC of Infanta, Quezon, Branch 65 found the accused-appellants guilty of murder. The trial court ruled that abuse of superior strength qualified the killing. It gave credence to the testimony of Eduardo, the lone prosecution witness who allegedly saw the incident because the bar was well-lit, and who was not shown to have any ill motive in testifying against the accused-appellants.

As to damages, the RTC found that only P15,000.00 of the actual expenses was duly proven by receipts, and that there was no evidence on the victim’s earning capacity other than the widow’s testimony. The RTC awarded temperate damages instead of actual damages beyond what was proven.

The RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 248 of the RPC as the crime was committed with the qualifying circumstance, and it ordered the accused to pay jointly and solidarily the heirs of Larry Parcon: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus costs. For Gary Badeviso and Rodel Torestre, whose whereabouts were unknown, the case was ordered archived to be revived upon their apprehension.

Issues Raised on Appeal

On appeal, accused-appellants challenged their conviction by assailing their identification by the lone prosecution witness. They also argued that the trial court committed error in qualifying the crime as murder after the trial court had ruled that they abused superior strength.

The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It argued that the defense of denial could not overcome the positive identification of the perpetrators, and that the trial court committed no reversible error in crediting the lone eyewitness.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with minor modifications. It held that accused-appellants were not eligible for parole. It also ordered the imposition of six percent (6%) interest per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. The CA otherwise sustained the RTC’s findings of guilt.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment with modifications.

The Court reiterated the elements required to convict for murder under Article 248 of the RPC: (one) a person was killed; (two) the accused killed him; (three) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance under Article 248; and (four) the killing was not parricide or infanticide. Applying these elements, the Court held that the prosecution established the required facts, particularly through the testimony of Eduardo, the lone witness who positively identified the accused-appellants as participants in the stabbing.

Assessment of Identification and Credibility

The Supreme Court found Eduardo’s identification testimony clear and categorical. Eduardo testified that after Rodel ran and stabbed Larry, Sammy and Daniel returned to Larry and stabbed him alternately while Charlie held Larry by the armpits. Eduardo further identified Gary Badeviso as stabbing Larry on the head and stated that Belgar stabbed Larry on his side. The Court also noted that at the time of the attack, the videoke bar was well-lit by three fluorescent lamps, with a fourth lamp illuminating the counter. It also found that no ill motive was shown on the part of Eduardo in testifying against the accused-appellants.

Relying on these considerations, the Court rejected the defense’s denial and sustained the conviction based on positive identification by the prosecution’s eyewitness.

Abuse of Superior Strength as Qualifying Circumstance

The Supreme Court also upheld the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. It explained that abuse of superior strength exists when there is a notorious inequality of forces between victim and aggressor, and the superiority is selected or taken advantage of in committing the crime. The Court stressed that the mere fact that more than one person attacked the victim does not automatically prove abuse of superior strength. The evidence must show that the aggressors purposely sought the advantage or acted with a deliberate intent to use it. It also clarified that to take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the attacked person, and that the assessment depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.

In this case, the Court held that the prosecution clearly showed that accused-appellants, taking advantage of their number, purposely resorted to holding Larry by the armpits so that the knife-wielders would be free to stab him, though successively. The Court considered that Larry had only one companion, Eduardo, while the assailants totaled five, a disparity sufficient to show a difference in strength and opportunity. The Court cited People v. Garchitorena to support appreciation of abuse of superior strength where the accused immobilized the victim and stabbed successively using the same deadly weapon. It therefore found the qualifying circumstance proven.

Penalty and Damages

With abuse of superior strength established as the only circumstance other than the base offense, the Court sustained the imposition of reclusion perpetua under Article 248.

As to damages, the Supreme Court corrected the awards in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. It ordered the heirs of the victim to receive: P75,000.00 as ci

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228886)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Charlie Flores, Daniel Flores, and Sammy Flores as accused-appellants for murder.
The appeal arose from the June 16, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07219.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC of Infanta, Quezon, Branch 65 Decision in Criminal Case No. 1738-I.
The accused-appellants elevated the case to challenge their conviction.
The Court held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, while affirming the CA with modifications.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information charged that on December 25, 2002, in Barangay Tignoan, Municipality of Real, Province of Quezon, the accused, armed with bladed weapons, conspired and attacked Larry Parcon, stabbing him multiple times in different vital parts.
The Information alleged that the killing was attended by intent to kill and was qualified by abuse of superior strength.
The Information further alleged that the act was committed with conspiracy, confederation, and mutual help among the accused.

Prosecution Version

The prosecution evidence showed that at about 8:45 p.m. on December 25, 2002, the victim Larry Parcon and Eduardo Mabini were traveling home by motorcycle when the motorcycle ran out of fuel in front of a videoke bar in Barangay Tignoan, Real, Quezon.
After Eduardo bought fuel upon Larry’s direction and Larry went inside the videoke bar, Eduardo heard a commotion from inside.
Eduardo climbed the stairs in front of the bar to check and saw Larry pacifying Sammy and Daniel while they fought, with Larry telling them “bakit kayo nag-aaway, paskong pasko.”
Eduardo then saw Rodel suddenly run toward Larry and stab him.
Eduardo testified that after Rodel stabbed Larry, Sammy, Daniel, and Rodel turned to Eduardo and took turns punching him.
Eduardo recounted that Sammy tried to stab him, but Eduardo failed to be stabbed because he had fallen down the stairs.
Eduardo testified that Sammy and Daniel then went back to Larry and alternately stabbed him with seven-inch double-blade knives on the lower right and left sides of his body.
Eduardo stated that Charlie held Larry by the armpits so that the knife-wielders could stab him.
Eduardo testified that Gary stabbed Larry on the head while another person identified as Belgar stabbed Larry on his right side.
Eduardo testified that after the attackers fled through the back door, he sought help at the barangay hall and Larry was rushed to the hospital.
The medical outcome was that Larry was pronounced dead on arrival after suffering five fatal stab wounds.
Beverly, Larry’s wife, testified on burial expenses and moral damages and stated that Larry was a Philippine Army corporal earning P8,000.00 a month.

Defense Version

The defense denied the allegations against the accused-appellants.
Sammy and Daniel claimed that at 9:00 p.m. they were at the house of the manager of their logging business, Sheryl Orozco, in Barangay Pagsanghan, General Nakar, Quezon, and that Sammy went home around midnight to sleep.
Sheryl testified to corroborate that Sammy and Daniel were at her house on that night.
Charlie claimed that he was with his wife Lonelyn Bantigue and brother-in-law Jesus Bantigue in Sitio Pagitna, Rizal, Burdeos, Quezon at the time of the incident.
Lonelyn corroborated that Charlie was with her and Jesus when the incident occurred.

RTC Findings and Damages

The RTC found the accused-appellants guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
The RTC ruled that abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder.
The RTC credited the testimony of Eduardo as the lone prosecution eyewitness.
The RTC found that the videoke bar was well-lit, that the eyewitness had the opportunity to observe the incident, and that the eyewitness was not shown to have any ill motive.
The RTC held that only P15,000.00 of actual expenses was duly proven by receipts.
The RTC also observed that there was no evidence on the victim’s earning capacity other than the widow’s testimony and therefore awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
The RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and stated that the Indeterminate Sentence Law did not apply because the penalty was indivisible.
The RTC ordered the accused-appellants to pay, jointly and solidarily, the heirs of Larry Parcon: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus costs.
The RTC ordered that the case against Gary Badeviso and Rodel Torestre, who remained at large, be archived to be revived upon apprehension.

Issues on Appeal

The accused-appellants challenged the identification by the lone prosecution witness, alleging error in their identification as perpetrators.
The accused-appellants also argued that the trial court erred in qualifying the offense as murder after it supposedly ruled that they abused superior strength.
The People countered t