Title
People vs. Maturgo, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 111872
Decision Date
Sep 27, 1995
Three men charged with murder after a fatal altercation; court found conspiracy but reduced charge to homicide due to lack of treachery or premeditation.
homicide
killing
stones

Case Summary (G.R. No. 111872)

Factual Background

The prosecution and the defense presented divergent narratives of what transpired on 26 January 1988.

As summarized by the prosecution, the incident began with a confrontation witnessed at Nilampas St., Dagupan, Tondo, Manila. Prosecution witness Romeo Ignacio saw his wife wiping herself with a towel in front of a group of men. Ignacio scolded her, and his wife later reported the matter to Pat. Albert Casimiro, who kicked Ignacio’s back after Ignacio questioned the reason for the kick. The altercation did not end in violence at that point because Accused Remigio Maturgo, Sr. pacified Casimiro and both left.

Thereafter, Ricardo Olivo, Jr., alias “Boy Pilay,” arrived, asked Casimiro why he kicked Ignacio, and was pulled away by his mother, Martina Olivo, to prevent further trouble. In anger, Ricardo Olivo allegedly threw a bottle of 7-up in front of the Maturgos’ residence, where Casimiro also lived. When Casimiro emerged, he and Olivo exchanged invectives while appellant Remigio Maturgo, Jr. struck the victim with a stone. A scuffle followed, and while Casimiro boxed Olivo’s mother who was trying to mediate, Ricardo ran toward Malong St.

At that point, the prosecution stated that Casimiro’s gun fell. Remigio Maturgo, Sr. picked it up, returned it to Casimiro, and ordered Casimiro to shoot the victim. Casimiro and appellant then chased Ricardo, Casimiro firing at the victim while Ricardo ran in a zigzag path between streets. Along the corner of Malong and Prudencia St., the prosecution asserted that appellant Adelio Hipolito clubbed Ricardo with a piece of wood, and then appellant Remigio Maturgo, Jr. later aggravated the beating by clubbing the victim’s head and face after Ricardo fell.

The prosecution further alleged that after Ricardo fell, he was shot and inflicted with mortal wounds. Witness Godofredo Retanan then transported the victim to the hospital, where he later died from gunshot wound and hemorrhage, and meningeal severe traumatic injuries.

Appellant’s Version of the Events

Appellant Remigio Maturgo, Jr. denied the prosecution’s account and offered a different chronology. According to appellant, the victim was drinking earlier in the day with acquaintances, including Romeo Ignacio and a person referred to as “Mang Dodong.” Around six o’clock in the evening, Casimiro allegedly became angry after Ignacio molested Casimiro’s wife when she went to the store. When Casimiro later ate supper, the victim arrived, forced Casimiro to come out, and uttered invectives at Casimiro while appearing drunk. Appellant stated that Martina Olivo pulled the victim and caused him to fall, injuring his chin.

The victim and his mother then quarreled in front of the house where they had drunk. Appellant claimed Casimiro continued eating and ignored the victim because of the victim’s intoxication. Later, the victim allegedly threw bottles that damaged window jalousies and Casimiro, after being prevented by his wife and mother-in-law, went out. Appellant narrated that when Romeo Ignacio saw Casimiro step out, he ran away. Casimiro testified that when the victim attempted to attack him, Casimiro pulled out a gun and fired upwards to scare the victim.

Appellant stated that when he and Remigio Maturgo, Sr. were outside, they pacified the victim and Casimiro during the altercation. Appellant claimed he picked up and threw a stone to prevent the victim from stabbing Casimiro. Appellant further asserted that Casimiro fired only after the victim lost balance because he was lame and turned his back, and that the victim ran and fell along Malong St. Appellant concluded that the kitchen knife was later found and brought to the homicide section by Casimiro.

Trial Court Proceedings and Modification on Motion for Reconsideration

After trial, the RTC of Manila, Branch 12, rendered judgment on 28 February 1992 convicting Remigio Maturgo, Jr. and Adelio Hipolito of murder as conspirators and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties, and ordered them to solidarily pay P30,000.00 to the heirs of Ricardo Olivo, Jr.

The RTC’s dispositive portion also ordered that the case of Remigio Maturgo, Sr. be archived because he had not submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.

On 26 May 1992, acting on Hipolito’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court re-examined the testimonies and found no conspiracy between Hipolito and the other accused. It reduced Hipolito’s liability from murder to less serious physical injuries, holding him responsible only for his individual participation, not as a conspirator.

Appellate Issues Raised by Remigio Maturgo, Jr.

Only appellant Remigio Maturgo, Jr. appealed his conviction for murder. He raised issues which, in substance, challenged: first, the finding of conspiracy; second, the sufficiency of evidence for murder; third, the credibility given to prosecution witnesses; and fourth, entitlement to acquittal for reasonable doubt.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Proof of Conspiracy

The Court affirmed the trial court’s credibility findings. It held that there was no reason to disturb the RTC’s determination that prosecution witnesses were more credible, and it reiterated that the RTC is the best judge of the demeanor of witnesses. The Court also noted inconsistencies in the defense version, such as the asserted location of the shooting and the claimed distance between places which the Court found implausible given the alleged fatality and the victim’s condition.

On conspiracy, the Court emphasized that conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a felony, which may be formed at the time of the commission and can be inferred from acts showing unity of purpose and execution. It found that the first act attributed to appellant—hitting the victim with an adobe stone—was not preceded by any prior agreement. It nevertheless concluded that once the chase began, both Casimiro and appellant pursued a common purpose to kill.

The Court relied on appellant’s proximity to Casimiro during the chase, Casimiro’s gunfire—including the shot that hit the victim at the middle portion of the back—and appellant’s subsequent conduct. It stressed that after the victim fell, appellant did not render aid. Instead, appellant attacked the fallen victim by hitting him with stones on the head and face. The Court held that this conduct evidenced participation in achieving the common design rather than mere presence.

The Court also treated witness Romeo Ignacio’s testimony, given on 26 April 1989, as confirming Ignacio’s earlier sworn statement made to police on 30 January 1988, particularly as to the sequence after the last shot. The Court found that appellant’s conduct showed acknowledgment of Casimiro’s motive and acquiescence in it. It therefore held that conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of Evident Premeditation and Treachery

Despite upholding conspiracy, the Court found no evidence warranting conviction for murder because the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were not sufficiently established.

On evident premeditation, the Court stated that the attendant circumstance requires proof of: the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; an act manifestly indicating persistence in that determination; and a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection. It found no specific evidence of prior deliberation. It characterized the precipitating events as spontaneous, citing three instances reflected in the record: the kicking of Ignacio by Casimiro, the confrontation between Olivo and Casimiro, and the stoning of Olivo by appellant. The Court viewed intent to kill as becoming manifest only when Casimiro chased the victim, shown by Casimiro firing shots and appellant not preventing it and, instead, following closely. The Court ruled that the post-fall assault by appellant showed intent to finish the victim but did not show mature deliberation or a time interval sufficient for cool and serene reflection and consci

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms