G.R. No. 132633 - People vs. Gemoya

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132633)

Factual Background

At about nine o’clock in the evening of January 27, 1996, a commotion in Barrio Malagamot, Panacan, Davao City drew neighbors outdoors. Witnesses saw Armando Gemoya and Candelario Aliazar run toward a house and return about thirty minutes later with Ronilo Tionko and Rolly Tionko. The four were armed with a cylindrical wooden stick, a pipe, and an improvised bow-and-arrow known locally as an “indian pana,” which used a nail as a dart. The group confronted a huddled crowd, then proceeded to the house of the Alferezes, where they encountered Wilfredo Alferez standing by the road. The four rushed at him; Ronilo Tionko struck him with a wooden batuta, Rolly Tionko struck with a pipe, Aliazar restrained his arms, and Gemoya released an “indian pana” that struck Alferez in the left chest. Alferez collapsed and was later pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. During the same incident a second discharge of an “indian pana” struck Rosalie Jimenez in the ear. Rosalie received medical attention and survived.

Informations and Charges

Two separate Informations were filed against four suspects, including the two accused-appellants and two others at large. In Criminal Case No. 36,459-96 the accused were charged with frustrated homicide with respect to Rosalie Jimenez for having, with intent to kill, hit her with the use of an “Indian Pana,” performing all acts of execution which could produce homicide but which did not produce it by reason of timely medical intervention. In Criminal Case No. 36,460-96 the accused were charged with murder of Wilfredo Alferez, alleged to have been committed with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

After joint trial the Regional Trial Court found both accused guilty in both cases. The trial court imposed in Criminal Case No. 36,459-96 a penalty of two years, four months, twenty-one days to eight years and one day for frustrated homicide with respect to Rosalie Jimenez, and in Criminal Case No. 36,460-96 imposed the death penalty on both accused for the murder of Wilfredo Alferez. Both accused appealed, and the cases were brought to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Errors Assigned and Issues on Appeal

Accused-appellant Ronilo Tionko contended that the factual record admitted of two or more explanations and that the trial court erred in finding him guilty in both cases. Accused-appellant Armando Gemoya advanced multiple assignments of error: that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder; erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance; erred in convicting him of frustrated homicide as to Rosalie; and erred in imposing the death penalty. The appeal therefore raised contested issues of factual credibility, of the presence or absence of justifying or mitigating circumstances, of conspiracy, and of the proper legal characterization of the wound to Rosalie.

The Parties’ Contentions

The prosecution urged affirmance of the convictions, relying on eyewitness testimony and the factual findings of the trial court. Gemoya asserted that self-defense justified his act because the affray was tumultuous and he acted in defense, and he further asserted voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. Tionko maintained that the evidence permitted alternative explanations and denied guilt. Both accused denied the requisite intent to kill Rosalie and contended that the injury to Rosalie was accidental.

Appellate Standard on Credibility

The Court reaffirmed the settled appellate principle, as reiterated in People vs. Patalin (G.R. No. 125539, July 27, 1999), that assessment of witness credibility is primarily for the trial court because of its superior opportunity to observe demeanor, conduct, and attitude. The Supreme Court stated that it would not lightly overturn those factual findings absent compelling reason appearing on the record.

Conspiracy and Joint Liability

The Court found that the conduct of the four assailants—ganging up upon a single unarmed victim and acting in concert until one obtained a clear shot—sufficiently established conspiracy and a common design. The Court applied authorities including People vs. Taguba, People vs. Gayon, and People vs. Bayrante to hold that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the mode and manner of the attack. The Court therefore held that conspirators are liable as principals and that Ronilo Tionko is equally liable for murder even if he did not himself inflict the fatal wound, citing People vs. Alas, People vs. Dinglasan, and People vs. Diaz for the proposition that minimal participation, holding the victim, or lending moral support renders one criminally responsible to the same extent as the actual killer.

Murder, Abuse of Superior Strength, and Self-Defense

The Court emphasized that Gemoya did not deny discharging the “indian pana” that caused Alferez’s death. Once an accused admits causing death, the burden shifts to the accused to establish lawful justification by clear and convincing evidence, as the Court explained with reference to People vs. Manlulu. The Court found that self-defense was not proved. The presence of four assailants against one unarmed victim demonstrated a notorious inequality of forces and the deliberate employment of excessive force. The Court therefore affirmed conviction for murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, relying on People vs. Bongadillo for the concept of abuse of superior strength.

Liability for the Injury to Rosalie and the Nature of the Offense

On the charge involving Rosalie Jimenez, the Court agreed with the accused that the intent to kill Rosalie was absent because eyewitness testimony indicated the second discharge of the “indian pana” was intended for Alferez and struck Rosalie accidentally. The Court applied the doctrine that mistake in the identity of the victim, whether error in personae or aberratio ictus, is neither exempting nor mitigating per People vs. Gona. Consequently, although Rosalie was not the intended victim, the accused were liable for the consequences of their felonious act under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Given the absence of proof of incapacitation or the extent of incapacity, the Court concluded that the proper characterization of the injury was slight physical injury under Paragraph 2 of Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code rather than frustrated homicide, and imposed the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding PHP 200.00. The Court expressly sentenced each accused to thirty days of arresto menor.

Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender and Penalty for Murder

Concerning the penalty for murder, the Court found that the trial court erred in failing to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Gemoya. Citing the rule under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court explained that where a mitigating circumstance is present and no aggravating circumstance remains beyond those absorbed in the qualifying circumstance, the minimum penalty should be imposed. The Court therefore reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each accused, as reclusion perpetua is the minimum indivisible penalty for murder when mitigating circumstances obtain.

Civil Liabi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 132633)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES was the plaintiff-appellee in the criminal prosecutions.
ARMANDO GEMOYA and RONILO TIONKO were the accused-appellants convicted by the trial court.
The cases arose from separate Informations tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court, Eleventh Judicial Region, Branch 15, Davao City.
The trial court convicted the accused of frustrated homicide in one case and murder in the other, imposing a determinate prison term and the death penalty respectively.
The matter reached the Court en banc on automatic review under the rules applicable to capital cases.
The Court's decision was rendered by the Supreme Court sitting en banc with the named Justices concurring.

Key Factual Allegations

On the evening of January 27, 1996, in Barrio Malagamot, Panacan, Davao City, a commotion drew neighborhood residents into the street.
Witnesses testified that Gemoya and Candelario Aliazar later returned with Ronilo Tionko and Rolly Tionko, armed with pipe, wood, and an improvised sling shot called an "indian pana."
The four assailants approached a group and then proceeded to the house of the Alferezes where Wilfredo Alferez stood waiting for a taxi.
The assailants rushed Wilfredo Alferez, with Ronilo Tionko striking him with a cylindrical wood and Rolly Tionko striking him with a pipe while Aliazar restrained his arms.
ARMANDO GEMOYA aimed and discharged the "indian pana," striking Wilfredo Alferez on the left chest and causing his immediate collapse.
Edgardo Jimenez and his daughter Rosalie Jimenez came to assist, and Rosalie was struck in the left ear by a subsequent missile and sustained injury.
Rosalie Jimenez received medical treatment and was declared out of danger, while Wilfredo Alferez was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

Informations and Charges

In Criminal Case No. 35,459-96 the Information charged that the accused, conspiring together and with intent to kill, hit Rosalie Jimenez with the "indian pana" and committed acts which could produce homicide but did not do so due to timely medical intervention, alleging frustrated homicide.
In Criminal Case No. 36,460-96 the Information charged that the accused, conspiring together and with intent to kill, attacked Wilfredo Alferez with an "indian pana" and that the killing was accompanied by treachery and abuse of superior strength, alleging murder.
Both accused entered pleas of not guilty and the cases were jointly tried.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide in the case concerning Rosalie Jimenez.
The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in the case concerning Wilfredo Alferez and imposed the death penalty.
The trial court imposed a determinate term of imprisonment for the frustrated homicide conviction and death for the murder conviction.

Issues on Appeal

RONILO TIONKO contended that the trial court erred because the facts were capable of two or more explanations and thus did not support conviction.
ARMANDO GEMOYA assigned errors alleging that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder, in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, in convicting him of frustrated homicide for Rosalie Jimenez, and in imposing the death penalty.
Both accused asserted defenses including alleged self-defense