G.R. No. 132392 - People vs. Marcos y Mon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132392)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence established that on August 19, 1996 at about 12:00 noon, Fernando Marcos, Jr. (Fernando) was resting under a mango tree a few meters from the Marcos family house. Virgilio later arrived and went to the artesian well (jetmatic) located at the back of the house. Fernando testified that at that moment he saw Cesar come out of the kitchen door holding a bolo and suddenly hack Virgilio from behind. Virgilio was first struck on the nape of the neck, causing him to fall. Cesar then hacked him again, this time striking him on the right side of the head. Fernando said that when he rushed to intervene and asked why Cesar did that, Cesar replied, “You go away if you do not want to get involved.” Fernando further narrated that Virgilio was still asking for help and that Cesar told him, “Your life is not enough to pay the money you squandered.” Fernando then sought assistance from Kagawad Solomon del Fierro (Solomon).

Solomon went with Fernando to the Marcoses’ house. On the road, they met Catalino Custodio (Catalino) heading in the same direction. Upon reaching the house, they saw Cesar seated in the sala with a bloodied bolo on the table beside him. Solomon asked where the victim was, and Cesar motioned toward the back of the house. They found Virgilio sprawled near the artesian well and shifted him to a more comfortable position. Fernando and Solomon later witnessed the arrival of policemen, who went inside the house. Cesar surrendered his bolo to SPO1 Oscar Lagasca and allowed himself to be hauled into the police car together with Virgilio’s body. Solomon testified that during the trip to the police station, he asked why Cesar hacked his brother, and Cesar answered, “That’s good for him.” Solomon also said that Cesar replied, “Even if I will be jailed.” Cesar lastly told Virgilio’s son, “Now you see what happened to your father.” Virgilio was already dead when they arrived at the station.

The post mortem examination conducted by Dr. Genaro Merino showed that Virgilio died from hemorrhage or loss of blood secondary to multiple hacking wounds. The doctor surmised the injuries could have been caused by a bolo and opined on the likely positioning of the assailant based on the distribution of wounds, discounting the possibility that the assailant and victim were facing each other because the victim could not be hacked in front.

Cesar denied responsibility under the prosecution’s version and presented a different account. He testified that on the afternoon of August 19, 1996, he was on his way out of the house when Virgilio approached near the artesian well, unsheathed his bolo, and tried to hack Cesar. Cesar claimed he was able to seize Virgilio’s arm and that a struggle ensued for the bolo. He stated that during the struggle Virgilio tripped and fell, hitting his head with the bolo. Cesar testified that after he saw Virgilio wounded, he went inside and sat on a bamboo bed near the door until the policemen arrived. He claimed the police retrieved the bolo from Virgilio who was holding it and that he agreed to accompany the police after being asked by them.

Trial Court Proceedings

Upon arraignment, Cesar pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The RTC found Cesar guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. In its January 7, 1998 Decision, it imposed the death penalty and ordered payment of P51,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

The Appellant’s Assignment of Error and the Appellate Issues

In the Supreme Court, Cesar raised a lone assignment of error, addressing only the propriety of the penalty. He argued that although evident premeditation was alleged in the Information, the prosecution allegedly failed to prove it, and thus the penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua, invoking People vs. Lucas (240 SCRA 68) and People vs. Saliling (249 SCRA 185), where the Court reduced the penalty when evident premeditation or other aggravating circumstance was not proven, and no mitigating circumstance was shown.

The Solicitor General countered that the presence or absence of evident premeditation was immaterial because the penalty should be determined based on the qualifying circumstance and any other circumstance established by the record. The Solicitor General maintained that treachery was present and properly qualified the killing. It further argued that Cesar’s blood relationship with the victim should operate as an aggravating circumstance in addition to treachery, warranting the death penalty.

Treachery and the Qualification of Murder

The Court held that treachery, to qualify murder, had to be proven clearly and indubitably, and not presumed. Applying that standard, the Court found that the prosecution’s eyewitness testimony showed treachery. Fernando testified that Cesar suddenly attacked Virgilio from behind while Virgilio was stooping and unaware, thereby depriving Virgilio—an unarmed, unsuspecting person—of any chance to repel or defend himself. The Court reasoned that when the victim fell, Cesar hacked him again, thereby ensuring the continued execution of the attack without risk from any defensive act by the victim. The Court concluded that the manner of attack secured Cesar’s design and thus constituted treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Evident Premeditation and the Determination of the Penalty

The Court recognized that evident premeditation, though alleged in the Information, was not proven; therefore, it could not be appreciated for penalty purposes. The issue then shifted to what other circumstance could affect the penalty.

The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s position that relationship could be considered as an aggravating circumstance. It noted that the victim was Cesar’s brother, a relationship that falls within the class of relatives whose relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons, including when the offender kills a brother. The Court observed that the prosecution witness Fernando testified that Cesar and Virgilio were brothers, Cesar himself also admitted that Virgilio was his brother, and the Information alleged that Virgilio was Cesar’s elder brother. The Court therefore held that relationship was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

Voluntary Surrender as a Mitigating Circumstance

The Court then addressed whether the trial court should have considered voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. It noted that a police certification dated February 18, 1997 stated that Cesar voluntarily surrendered to the station with the weapon used. Although the RTC did not take this into account and neither party raised it in their briefs, the Court considered the possible effect on the penalty.

The Court restated the requisites for voluntary surrender: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested, (b) the offender surrendered to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent, and (c) the surrender was voluntary. It emphasized that the surrender must be spontaneous and must clearly indicate the intent to surrender unconditionally, either through acknowledgment of guilt or by wishing to save the authorities from the trouble and expense of capturing him. The Court found that Cesar testified that he did not resist when brought to the police station and that he placed himself at the disposal of the authorities voluntarily and unconditionally. The police certification supported this account, and the Court observed that the prosecution did not refute the claim. Citing the Court’s established approach, the Court held that where the accused’s testimony on voluntary surrender was not disputed, the mitigating circumstance should be appreciated.

Application of Article 63 and the Correct Penalty

Under Article 248, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The Court invoked Article 63 on rules for the application of indivisible penalties, which provides that when there is only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied; when there are both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, courts must reasonably allow them to offset one another and apply the penalty according to the result of such compensation.

The Court held that while treachery qualified the killing, evident premeditation was not proven. It recognized that relationship was present as an aggravating circumstance, but it was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. With one aggravating circumstance offset by one mitigating circumstance, the Court ruled that the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua, not death.

Civil Liability and the Adjustments to Damages

On the award of

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 132392)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Cesar Marcos y Mon for Murder in Criminal Case No. B-055.
The case was heard by the Regional Trial Court of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70.
The RTC rendered judgment on January 7, 1998 finding Cesar guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposing the supreme penalty of death.
Cesar appealed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case automatic review mode.
The sole assignment of error raised by the appellant concerned the correctness of the penalty of death.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information charged that on or about August 19, 1996 at noon, in Brgy. Bayambang, Infanta, Pangasinan, Cesar attacked his elder brother Virgilio with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation.
The Information alleged that Cesar hacked Virgilio with a bolo on the right side of the head, back of the neck, and other parts of the body.
The Information specified multiple wounds and alleged that these injuries caused Virgilio’s instantaneous death.
The Information alleged the killing was contrary to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Prosecution Evidence Summary

Prosecution witness Fernando Marcos, Jr. testified that he was resting under a mango tree a few meters from the Marcoses’ house when Virgilio arrived at the artesian well behind the house.
Fernando stated that Virgilio bent down to place on the ground the tools he carried.
Fernando testified that at that precise moment Cesar emerged from the kitchen door holding a bolo and suddenly hacked Virgilio from behind.
Fernando described that Virgilio was first hit on the nape, causing him to fall to the ground.
Fernando stated that Cesar then hacked Virgilio again, hitting the right side of the head.
Fernando testified that after being hacked Virgilio asked for help, and Fernando could only watch due to fear.
Fernando narrated that Cesar told Virgilio that his life was not enough to pay for money he squandered.
Fernando stated that assistance was sought from Kagawad Solomon del Fierro (Solomon) and that Solomon together with Fernando went to the Marcoses’ house.
Solomon and Fernando allegedly saw Cesar seated in the sala with a bloodied bolo on a table beside him.
They asked for the victim, and Cesar motioned toward the back of the house where they found Virgilio sprawled near the artesian well.
Solomon testified that they shifted Virgilio to a more comfortable position and that police later arrived.
Cesar allegedly surrendered his bolo to SPO1 Oscar Lagasca and, without uttering a word, allowed himself to be hauled to the police car together with Virgilio’s body.
Solomon testified that on the way to the police station, Cesar answered questions about the hacking with statements such as “That’s good for him” and “Even if I will be jailed.”
Dr. Genaro Merino conducted the post mortem examination and testified that Virgilio died due to hemorrhage or loss of blood secondary to multiple hacking wounds.

Medical and Evidentiary Findings

Dr. Merino surmised that the wounds could have been caused by a bolo.
He explained that because many wounds were located on the right side of the victim, it was possible that the assailant stood just behind the victim on the victim’s left side.
He discounted the possibility that the assailant and the victim faced each other because, in his assessment, a person could not be hacked in front.

Defense Version

Cesar testified that on the afternoon of August 19, 1996, he was leaving the house when Virgilio approached near the artesian well.
Cesar stated that Virgilio unsheathed his bolo and attempted to hack him.
Cesar claimed he was able to hold Virgilio’s arm and they grappled for the bolo.
Cesar asserted that during the struggle, Virgilio tripped and fell to the ground, hitting his head with the bolo.
Cesar testified that after seeing Virgilio wounded, he went inside the house and sat near the bamboo bed near the door until the police arrived.
He stated that the police retrieved the bolo from Virgilio, who was then holding it.
Cesar testified that he agreed to go to the police station because the police asked him to accompany his brother, and that at the police station he was immediately detained after which a criminal complaint was filed.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellant raised whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of death.
The appellant argued that although evident premeditation was alleged in the Information, the prosecution failed to prove it.
The appellant invoked People vs. Lucas (240 SCRA 68) and People vs. Saliling (249 SCRA 185) to support a reduction to reclusion perpetua.
The appellant also relied on the legal proposition that where the killing is qualified by treachery but no evident premeditation or other aggravating circumstance is duly proven, the penalty should be reduced.
The Solicitor General countered that absence of proof of evident premeditation did not prevent the imposition of the death penalty when the aggravating circumstance of relationship—as an alternative—was present.

Parties’ Contentions

The appellant contended that the prosecution did not prove evident premeditation despite its allegation in the Information.
The appellant argued that without proof of evident premeditation or other aggravating circumstances, reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
The Solicitor General argued that the penalty determination could still consider relationship as an aggravating circumstance despite the trial court’s failure to appreciate evident premeditation for penalty purposes.
The Solicitor General emphasized that treachery qualifies murder when proven by clear and indubitable evidence.
The parti