Case Summary (G.R. No. 132287)
Petitioner / Respondent
Petitioner (plaintiff-appellee): People of the Philippines. Respondent (appellant on appeal): Agapito Listerio y Prado.
Key Dates and Temporal Details
Criminal Case Nos.: 91-5842 (Murder) and 91-5843 (Frustrated Homicide). Informations allege dates variously: murder information alleges on or about 11 August 1991; frustrated homicide information alleges on or about 14 May 1991. Prosecution eyewitness and trial testimony repeatedly describe the events as occurring on or about 14 August 1991. Trial testimony and medico-legal examinations are reflected in transcript dates spanning 1991–1994; the appealed decision was reviewed and modified by the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law and Authorities
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable to decisions dated 1990 or later). Penal statutes and doctrines applied: Revised Penal Code provisions on murder, homicide and attendant qualifying/mitigating circumstances (Arts. 249–251, Art. 50, Art. 51, Art. 64 par. 3, Art. 70); Article 250 (penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide); Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225); Civil Code Article 2230 (exemplary damages); and controlling jurisprudence cited by the court on witness credibility, conspiracy, treachery, and the distinction between attempted and frustrated crimes.
Charges and Lower Court Disposition
Accused were charged in two amended informations: Count I (Criminal Case No. 91-5842) — murder for the stabbing and death of Jeonito Araque; Count II (Criminal Case No. 91-5843) — frustrated homicide (alleged attempt) for stabbing and hitting Marlon Araque. At trial, Agapito Listerio and Samson dela Torre pleaded not guilty. Samson escaped during the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and was not tried initially in absentia by the trial court; the trial court convicted only Agapito Listerio. The trial court sentenced Listerio to reclusion perpetua for the death of Jeonito and imposed a penalty for the alleged attempt on Marlon; it also awarded specified civil damages to the victims and heirs.
Prosecution Evidence — Eyewitness and Medical Testimony
Primary eyewitness: surviving victim Marlon Araque testified that he and his brother were waylaid at Tramo near Tino’s place by a group including the accused, who blocked their path and attacked with knives and lead pipes; Jeonito was stabbed from behind and later died; Marlon sustained head lacerations and stab wounds. Medico-legal testimony: Dr. Bievenido Munoz conducted autopsy on Jeonito and reported three stab wounds inflicted from behind; one perforated the left lung and thoracic aorta and was fatal. Dr. Salvador Manimtim examined Marlon and documented lacerations and stab wounds; some wounds were from sharp instruments and others from blunt instruments (lead pipes). Documentary exhibits included medical certificates, autopsy reports, and receipts for funeral expenses.
Accused’s Defense — Alibi and Denial of Identification
Accused-appellant Agapito Listerio asserted an alibi: he claimed to have been drinking earlier and sleeping at home during the relevant time, was later brought to police for questioning, and was shown a sworn statement executed by Marlon implicating him. Listerio denied participation, contending that Marlon’s testimony was uncorroborated and failed to positively identify him as the perpetrator.
Standard of Review on Credibility and Trial Court Findings
The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the trial judge is best positioned to evaluate demeanor and veracity. The Court reiterated the settled rule that a single credible eyewitness may suffice for conviction when testimony is positive, consistent, spontaneous, and straightforward. The trial court’s finding that Marlon’s testimony possessed the earmarks of truth and reliability was accepted on appeal in the absence of arbitrariness.
Identification and Motive Considerations
The Court found that Marlon’s identification of the assailants was reliable: he was a victim-witness with a strong interest in seeing the perpetrators punished and had a high degree of familiarity with the attackers. The record contained no convincing proof of ill-motive or bias sufficient to discredit his testimony. Attempts by defense to show provocation or that the parties had been drinking together were rejected by the trial court and affirmed on review.
Conspiracy and Treachery — Inference and Application
The Court held that direct proof of conspiracy is not essential and may be inferred from the manner, mode and circumstances of the offense. Here, the coordinated blocking of the victims’ path by a numerically superior group, their being armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes, and the simultaneous joint assault supported an inference of conspiracy (common design and concert of action). Treachery was found from the sudden, unexpected attack upon apparently unarmed victims and the deliberate nature of the stabbing from behind with upward thrusts into vital areas — circumstances that insured execution without risk to the assailants. Abuse of superior strength was present but legally absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Evident premeditation claimed in the information was not proved and therefore was not further credited.
Alibi Assessment and Physical Possibility
The Court treated the alibi with caution, noting the general suspicion with which alibi defenses are viewed and the need for affirmative proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene. The proximity of accused’s residence (approximately 100 meters) to the locus supported the physical possibility of participation and undermined the credibility of the uncorroborated alibi.
Distinction Between Attempted and Frustrated Homicide — Recharacterization
The Supreme Court analyzed the subjective and objective phases of the offense to determine whether the charge against the accused for Marlon should be characterized as attempted or frustrated homicide. The Court explained that frustrated felony occurs when the offender has performed all acts of execution which would produce the felony but the felony did not occur due to causes independent of the offender’s will. Considering that the assailants stabbed and clubbed Marlon, apparently believed him dead and fled, and that death did not ensue due to timely medical attention, the Court concluded the subjective phase had been passed and the proper classification was frustrated homicide (not attempted). The intent to kill was established by the acts and weapons used.
Sentencing and Penalty Determination
For the murder conviction relating to Jeonito’s death, the trial court had imposed reclusion perpetua; that conviction was affirmed. For the offense against Marlon, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s characterization and penalty: it found Agapito guilty of frustrated homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty — minimum of six (6) years of prision correccional (the penalty one degree lower than prision mayor) and maximum of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 132287)
Nature of the Case
- Prosecution of multiple persons for crimes arising from a single assault: Murder (Criminal Case No. 91-5842) and Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 91-5843).
- Accused-appellant: Agapito Listerio y Prado. Co-accused named include Samson dela Torre y Esquela (who escaped during trial presentation of prosecution evidence and was not tried in absentia at the trial court), Marlon dela Torre, George dela Torre, Bonifacio Bancaya and several others still at large.
- Appeal from conviction of Agapito Listerio by the trial court; decision reviewed by the Supreme Court (First Division) in G.R. No. 122099, decided July 5, 2000 (Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing).
Charges and Allegations (as in the Amended Informations)
- Criminal Case No. 91-5842 (Murder): Alleged that on or about August 11, 1991 in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, all armed with bladed weapons and GI lead pipes, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation with abuse of superior strength, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and stabbed Jeonito Araque y Daniel at the back of his body, inflicting mortal wounds which directly caused his death.
- Criminal Case No. 91-5843 (Frustrated Homicide): Alleged that on or about May 14, 1991 in Muntinlupa, accused, conspiring and confederating together, with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stabbed and hit with a lead pipe and bladed weapon Marlon Araque y Daniel on vital portions of his body, inflicting serious and mortal wounds which would have caused his death; the acts performed would have produced Homicide but did not because of timely and able medical attendance.
Arraignment and Pleas; Trial Course
- Accused Agapito Listerio and Samson dela Torre pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
- Several co-accused remained at large.
- Trial proceeded; during presentation of prosecution evidence Samson dela Torre escaped, and the trial court thereafter rendered judgment only against Agapito Listerio (Samson was not tried in absentia by the trial court).
- Agapito Listerio appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, raising particular assignments of error regarding insufficiency of evidence and lack of proof of conspiracy and treachery.
Prosecution's Version of Events — Chronology of the Assault (as elicited from eyewitness Marlon Araque)
- Date and general time: Around 5:00 p.m., August 14, 1991 (note two dates appear in the Informations: August 11 and May 14 for the respective Informations; eyewitness testimony addresses August 14, 1991).
- Location: Purok 4, Alabang, Muntinlupa; waylaid at Tramo near Tino’s place.
- Purpose of victims: Marlon and his brother Jeonito went to collect money from a certain Tino; having failed to collect, they were returning when attacked.
- Composition of assailants: A group composed of Agapito Listerio, Samson dela Torre, George dela Torre, Marlon dela Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya blocked their path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed weapons.
- Conduct of attack: The assailants blocked their path (hinarang) and attacked with knives and lead pipes; Jeonito was stabbed from behind and fell; Marlon was struck on the head by lead pipes, lost consciousness, and when he regained consciousness three minutes later saw Jeonito was dead; assailants fled.
- Injuries to Jeonito (as observed by Marlon at the scene): Three stab wounds on upper right back, one on lower right back, and one on middle portion of left back (witness pointed to these locations in court).
Eyewitness Testimony of Marlon Araque — Key Points and Identifications
- Marlon identified Jeonito as his brother and testified Jeonito “is already dead” and died “last August 14.”
- Marlon recounted the events in a categorical, convincing and straightforward manner; he identified Agapito Listerio and Samson dela Torre among those inside the courtroom when asked to point them out.
- Marlon described being waylaid in Tramo and said the assailants “suddenly they stabbed us with knife and ran afterwards.”
- He named Agapito, George and Marlon (dela Torre) as the persons who stabbed Jeonito (three stabbers).
- Marlon testified he was hit with a lead pipe by Samson and Bonifacio which caused him to lose consciousness for about three minutes.
- On cross-examination he consistently denied any drinking spree on the date and resisted defense attempts to show provocation or prior conviviality with the alleged attackers.
Medical and Forensic Evidence — Marlon Araque (Surviving Victim)
- Marlon was examined by Dr. Salvador Manimtim, head of the Medico‑Legal Division of UP-PGH.
- Medical Certificate and exhibits (Exhibit I and series) documented:
- Two lacerated wounds: one 5 cm at mid-parietal area of the head; one 2 cm at mid-frontal (forehead).
- A 1.5 cm lacerated wound at the forearm.
- A stab wound measuring 3 cm at the right shoulder at the collar.
- Dr. Manimtim’s testimony: wounds on the forearm and shoulder were caused by a sharp object like a knife; head wounds were caused by a blunt instrument such as a lead pipe.
Medical and Forensic Evidence — Jeonito Araque (Deceased)
- Autopsy performed by Dr. Bievenido Munoz (NBI Medico‑Legal Officer); Autopsy Report and exhibits H-1, H-2, H-3 submitted.
- Findings:
- Three stab wounds, all inflicted from behind by a sharp, pointed and single‑bladed instrument (kitchen knife, balisong or similar).
- First stab wound: 1.7 cm, approximate depth 11.0 cm, perforated lower lobe of the left lung and the thoracic aorta — considered fatal given involvement of a vital organ and a major blood vessel.
- Second wound: 2.4 cm, affected skin and soft tissues and did not penetrate the body cavity — non‑fatal.
- Third wound: 2.7 cm, involved only soft tissues — non‑fatal.
- Dr. Munoz opined the first and second wounds were inflicted by knife thrusts delivered from below going upward by assailants standing behind the victim.
Defense of the Accused-Appellant (Agapito Listerio) — Alibi and Denials
- Accused-appellant’s own account (summarized in his brief and in trial testimony):
- He was a 39‑year‑old married sidewalk vendor, resident of Purok 4, Bayanan, Muntinlupa; earned a living selling vegetables.
- On August 14, 1991 at about 1:00 p.m. he was at the store of Nimfa Agustin drinking beer with Edgar Demolador and Andres Gininao; went home and slept about 2:00 p.m.
- At about 5:00 p.m., Edgar and Andres woke him and told him there was a quarrel near the railroad track.
- Around 6:00 p.m., two policemen came to the place where he was chatting and later invited him for questioning at Muntinlupa Police Headquarters together with Edgar and Andres; Edgar and Andres were sent home; at the police station he was handed a Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Marlon Araque implicating him; he confronted Marlon who said it was because “you ejected us from your house.”
- Accused-appellant insisted Marlon’s testimony was uncorroborated and failed to clearly and positively identify him as the malefactor; he argued prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.