Title
People vs. Iligan y Jamito
Case
G.R. No. 75369
Decision Date
Nov 26, 1990
Accused hacked victim during a scuffle; victim later died after being run over. Court ruled hacking as proximate cause, convicting one of homicide, acquitting another due to lack of conspiracy evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75369)

Background and Charges

On August 4, 1980, an information was filed for murder against Fernando Iligan, Edmundo Asis, and Juan Macandog. The crime involved the fatal hacking of Esmeraldo Quinones, Jr., who sustained injuries on his face and head inflicted by Fernando Iligan using a bolo (sinampalok). Juan Macandog was not apprehended and remained at large. At the arraignment held on January 12, 1981, Fernando Iligan and Edmundo Asis pleaded not guilty.

Account of Events According to the Prosecution

At around 2:00 a.m. on the date of the incident, the victim and his companions were walking home from a barrio fiesta dance when they encountered the accused. Edmundo Asis allegedly pushed the victim’s group aside, leading to a brief altercation where Zaldy Asis boxed Edmundo. Fernando Iligan then brandished a bolo and attempted to hack Zaldy Asis but missed. The victim and his companions fled and after resting, were invited by Quinones to go to his house. While approaching the house, Fernando Iligan suddenly attacked and hacked Esmeraldo Quinones, Jr. on the forehead, causing him to fall. The companions fled but returned upon hearing shouts, finding the victim dead with a busted head.

Medical Evidence and Cause of Death

Dr. Marcelito E. Abas performed an autopsy and reported multiple fractures and massive cerebral hemorrhages in half of the victim's skull, accompanied by several wounds including an incised wound on the right eyebrow and abrasions on the shoulder and neck. The death certificate stated the cause of death as “shock and massive cerebral hemorrhages due to a vehicular accident,” which was disputed by the prosecution and the victim’s father, Esmeraldo Quinones, Sr., who stated from counsel he received that if a hacking and vehicular incident had occurred simultaneously, the hacking wound would not be visibly evident.

Defense and Alibi

The accused denied involvement. Fernando Iligan testified that he was picking up visitors from the dance hall and later met Edmundo Asis, who was presumed drunk. They were boxed by an unknown person raising a scuffle, after which they returned home accompanied by a companion, Juliano Mendoza. Edmundo Asis corroborated this testimony and stated he was at home sleeping during the alleged time of the crime.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court rejected the vehicular accident theory, finding no conclusive evidence of such based on photographs and testimonies. The court held that Iligan’s group had conspired to kill as retaliation for the earlier boxing incident and found evident premeditation and treachery. Consequently, the court convicted Fernando Iligan and Edmundo Asis of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnification for the victim’s heirs.

Appellate Court Review and Analysis of Evidence

The appellate court thoroughly reviewed the evidence, including the defense’s reliance on Dr. Abas’s testimony that the victim’s head fractures were caused by a vehicular accident, supported by claims of tire marks on the victim’s shoulder and neck. Eyewitnesses recounted hearing shouts suggestive of a vehicular accident shortly after the bolo attack. Barangay captain Marciano Mago testified to seeing tire marks and scattered brain matter at the crime scene.

Despite evidence that the fatal head injury was caused by a vehicle, the court held that Fernando Iligan’s hacking was the proximate cause leading to the victim’s death. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is criminally liable for any direct, natural, and probable consequence of an intentional felony, even if the resulting act differs from the intended one. The act of hacking the victim was intentionally directed at a vital part — the head — with the intent to kill, resulting in the victim falling onto the roadway where he was run over by a vehicle. This chain of causation established Iligan’s legal responsibility for the death.

Dismissal of Aggravating Circumstances on Appeal

The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s appreciation of treachery and evident premeditation. The element of treachery requires that the mode of attack make it difficult or impossible for the victim to defend himself consciously, which was not proven merely by the suddenness of the attack. The prior hostile acts were deemed warnings, allowing the victim’s group to anticipate a possible attack. Moreover, the requisites for evident premeditation — determination to commit the crime, an overt act indicating such intention, and lapse of time for reflection — were not sufficiently established.

Exoneration of Edmundo Asis

Evidence did not prove Edmundo’s active participation in the assault or conspiracy. Mere presence and knowledge of Fernando’s criminal intent without active cooperation did not make Edmundo a co-conspirator, co-principal, or accomplice. The testimony implicating Edmundo lacked corroboration and came from a biased witness. Hence, Edmundo Asis was acquitted.

Final Holding and Penalty Imposed

Fernando Iligan was convicted of homicide, with the penalty adjusted accordingly to reclusion temporal medium, applying the


    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.