Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30085-87)
Core Factual Narrative Established at Trial
Eyewitness testimony (chiefly from the victim’s daughter Milagros Gardon and niece Melinda Delfin) described a coordinated assault: the assailants stoned the victim’s house to force him out; Epifanio entered the house and led the intoxicated victim outside; Cesar reportedly hurled stones and boxed/kicked the victim while two others lay in wait; the group lured the victim toward a bridge where Maximo stabbed him, resulting in a fatal wound. The witnesses identified four assailants present at the stabbing scene.
Prosecution Evidence
Primary evidence consisted of two eyewitness accounts (Milagros Gardon and Melinda Delfin) who observed the events and identified Cesar as among the aggressors. The prosecution also offered a medico-legal officer’s testimony (from the separate case) describing a single fatal stab wound penetrating the pericardium and left ventricle, and a death certificate. The medico-legal testimony was, however, taken in the co-defendants’ case and the prosecution did not produce the medico-legal witness for cross-examination in Cesar’s trial.
Defense Evidence and Position
Accused-appellant Cesar testified in his own defense, denying participation in the fatal stabbing. He claimed to have been drinking at a cousin’s home some thirty meters away, to have tried to pacify a quarrel between Maximo and the victim, and to have led the victim to his home. He asserted that after the victim engaged again in a fight, he attempted to help but fled when the victim’s son allegedly came with a bolo; he denied seeing a stabbing and claimed he learned of the victim’s death only later. Cesar contended his presence only at the scene did not make him responsible for the homicide.
Trial Court Judgment
The trial court found Cesar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, ordered indemnity to the heirs in the amount of P50,000.00, and imposed costs. Cesar appealed, contesting the sufficiency of evidence and raising ancillary procedural and evidentiary objections.
Issue on Appeal
The principal assignment of error was that the conviction was supported by reasonable doubt. Additional issues addressed on appeal included the existence and validity of the arrest warrant and the admissibility of the medico-legal testimony taken in the separate case.
Credibility and Sufficiency: Supreme Court Findings
The appellate tribunal affirmed the trial court’s credibility assessments. It found the eyewitnesses’ accounts spontaneous, detailed, and consistent on the essential facts: that Cesar and his companions were the last seen with the victim and that they participated in stoning, beating, and ultimately in the assault culminating in the fatal stabbing. Minor inconsistencies in peripheral details were deemed immaterial and not undermining the witnesses’ core testimonies. The Court also noted absence of demonstrated ill motive on the part of the witnesses that could explain fabrication.
Conspiracy and Imputation of Liability
The Court concluded that a common design or conspiracy existed. The facts—stoning the house to draw the victim out, one defendant entering to escort the victim, the pursuit to lure him toward a location where others awaited, and the collaborative physical assault—demonstrated a coordinated plan. Applying the principle that acts performed in furtherance of a common purpose are attributable to all conspirators, the Court held Cesar criminally liable for murder as if he had personally inflicted the fatal blow.
Evident Premeditation: Court’s Analysis
The Court declined to recognize evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance. It distinguished between express (direct) conspiracy, where premeditation can be proven by showing deliberation and prior selection of means and time, and the implied or constructive conspiracy here. The prosecution did not show how or when any plan to kill was formed nor the lapse of time allowing for cool reflection; therefore, evident premeditation could not be appreciated.
Treachery: Court’s Rationale
Treachery was also rejected as a qualifying circumstance. Treachery requires deliberate, unexpected attack at the inception such that the victim has no opportunity to defend. The Court observed the victim had received warnings and was not completely oblivious; he followed two assailants and thus had some awareness and ability to anticipate danger. Any surprise at the moment of seeing additional attackers did not suffice to establish treachery as legally required.
Abuse of Superior Strength: Qualifying Circumstance Found
The Court affirmed the presence of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance. The evidence established the victim was unarmed, outnumbered, and confronted by four assailants—one armed with a knife—thereby demonstrating a clear numerical and physical superiority exploited in the assault.
Warrant of Arrest and Waiver of Objections
The Court addressed Cesar’s contention that his arrest was without a warrant. Records showed a warrant of arrest issued on April 27, 1995; although returned unserved when Cesar could not be located and later executed when Cesar was found on May 4, 1996, no alias warrant was required. Further, Cesar did not file a motion to quash prior to pleading; by pleading not guilty and participating in trial, he was deemed to have waived objections going to the court’s jurisdiction over his person. The Court applied the doctrine that procedural objections to the acquisi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30085-87)
Procedural History
- Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant Cesar Givera y Garote guilty of murder of Eusebio Gardon y Arrivas and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity of P50,000.00 (without subsidiary imprisonment) and payment of costs (Decision dated August 29, 1997, per Judge Perlita J. Tria Tirona).
- Information dated April 10, 1995 charged accused with murder allegedly committed on or about May 2, 1993 in Quezon City with alleged conspiracy and participation of Epifanio (Efipanio) Gayon, Arturo Gayon and Maximo Givera (docketed separately as Criminal Case No. Q-93-44315 in Branch 104).
- Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on April 10, 1996 and proceeded to trial.
- Co-accused Epifanio Gayon, Arturo Gayon and Maximo Givera were separately prosecuted and initially convicted by RTC, Branch 104 (decision dated June 6, 1994), and on appeal their convictions were affirmed with modification by this Court (People v. Gayon, 269 SCRA 589 (1997)).
- Arrest warrant for accused-appellant was issued April 27, 1995; returned unserved June 7, 1995; accused was arrested May 4, 1996 at East Avenue Medical Center.
- This Court rendered its decision on January 18, 2001, affirming conviction with modification as to damages.
Charge and Information
- Information (April 10, 1995) alleged that on or about May 2, 1993, in Quezon City, accused Cesar Givera, conspiring with Epifanio Gayon and Arturo Gayon, and mutually helping Maximo Givera, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with evident premeditation and treachery, attacked and stabbed Eusebio Gardon with a knife and struck him with a piece of stone, inflicting mortal wounds which caused his death, contrary to law.
Factual Background and Chronology of the Incident
- Incident occurred about 4:00 p.m., May 2, 1993, at Purok IV, Area 5, Laura St., Old Balara, Diliman, Quezon City.
- Victim Eusebio Gardon had been drinking and was asleep/lying down in his house; his daughter Milagros was watching him to prevent him from going outside after accused allegedly warned he would kill the victim if he went out.
- A group (four persons according to eyewitnesses) arrived; stones were hurled at the victim’s house, one person (Epifanio “Onying” Gayon) entered the house and persuaded the victim to come out.
- Accused-appellant was observed stoning the house and later allegedly stoning and hitting the victim; the victim followed accused after the latter ran away; the victim was lured toward a nearby bridge where the other assailants were waiting.
- At the bridge (about fifteen meters from the victim’s house), the victim was kicked, boxed, mauled and finally stabbed; the stabbing produced a fatal wound to the chest penetrating the pericardium and left ventricle.
- Victim was found lying under the bridge for about thirty minutes until his children arrived; he later died from injuries.
Testimony of Milagros Gardon (victim’s daughter) — Key Points
- Present at residence at about 4:00 p.m.; was watching her father because he was drunk and had been warned by accused that if he went outside he would be killed.
- Testified their house was being stoned; identified Cesar Givera as the person stoning their house and stated he was with others though he was the one stoning.
- Identified Epifanio (“Onying”) Gayon as the person who entered the house, asked the victim to go out, and led him outside while Cesar continued stoning.
- Stated that after the victim went outside, Cesar awaited them, then scampered away, the victim followed, and they ran until reaching a place where another person stabbed the victim.
- Testified she saw four persons in all; recounted Cesar stoning and Onying getting the victim out; Turing (Arturo Gayon) ordered the stabbing and the person who stabbed waited under the bridge.
- Positively identified Maximo Givera (Bingo) as the one who stabbed the victim and testified she saw the stabbing.
- Under cross-examination, clarified position in house, the sequence of events, and distances (about fifteen meters from house to place of stabbing); admitted some detail lapses (e.g., initial knowledge that Cesar was stoning came from victim’s statement).
Testimony of Melinda Delfin (victim’s niece) — Key Points
- Approaching the house around 4:00 p.m.; saw Epifanio Gayon with his hand on the victim’s shoulder as they came out of the yard.
- Observed Cesar Givera box (punch) the victim; testified both Cesar and Epifanio boxed the victim, then returned to the victim’s house and the victim followed them.
- Saw Maximo (Bingo) and Arturo (Turing) present near the bridge; testified that Onying and Cesar gave fistic blows and Bingo stabbed the victim; saw kicking and stabbing.
- Testified she saw four persons at the place of stabbing: Turing (Arturo), Bingo (Maximo), Cesar and Onying; confirmed she saw Cesar throwing stones toward the victim’s house and that the victim was hit by stones.
- Estimated distance and positions: victim’s premises about 15 meters from the bridge; she was about 15 meters away when she saw the incident; affirmed she saw Bingo stab the victim and that Cesar was boxing and kicking the victim when the stabbing occurred.
- Recounted hearing Arturo shout “Sige, todasin na yan!” prior to stabbing.
Medico-Legal Evidence and Cause of Death
- Testimony of medico-legal officer P/Maj. Florante Baltazar (given in Criminal Case No. Q-93-44315) introduced showing:
- Victim sustained one fatal stab wound possibly caused by a single-bladed weapon.
- Victim sustained abrasions on lower chin and an incised wound on posterior middle left arm.
- The stab wound pierced the pericardium and left ventricle of the heart, which could produce hemorrhage, shock and death.
- Death certificate (Exhibit B) evidencing death of the victim was presented.
- Trial court record references: RTC Records, pp. 107-126; Exh. E for medico-legal testimony; Exh. B for death certificate.
Accused-Appellant’s Testimony and Defense
- Cesar Givera testified denying involvement; resident of Laura St., Old Balara at time of incident; relative by affinity of victim.
- Claimed he was drinking at cousin’s house (about 30 meters from victim’s house) when fetched by cousin Recto Gardon because Maximo and the victim were in an altercation; said he went to pacify and led the victim to his house.
- Alleged the victim returned and engaged Maximo in a fistfight and was knocked down; accused said he intended to help but fled upon seeing victim’s son Ronilo coming with a bolo.
- Claimed he did not see his companions do more than punch the victim and that he ran away after the attack; learned of the victim’s death two days later.
- Arrested May 4, 1996 at East Avenue Medic