Title
People vs. Nabong
Case
G.R. No. 172324
Decision Date
Apr 4, 2007
Three construction workers convicted of attempted rape with homicide after attacking a woman in Makati; guilt proven via witness testimonies and evidence; penalty modified to life imprisonment.
attempted rape
homicide
conspiracy
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172324)

Factual Background

The prosecution established that the four accused-appellants and Arnel Miraflor, together with co-workers, were construction workers employed as steelmen by EEI and assigned at the OCW-RCBC Plaza Project along Ayala Avenue, Makati City. The incident occurred on the evening of 23 March 1999 after a drinking spree. Witness Reynaldo Patenio, also an EEI steelman and co-worker of the accused, testified that around 9:00 p.m., the workers were at the barracks and decided to go out for drinks. They arrived at a nearby videoke bar around 9:15 p.m., where each man consumed multiple bottles of Colt 45 beer. By about 11:30 p.m., the videoke bar closed and the group ended the session, with Rogelio Amit, Lilia, and Ariel Cortez leaving earlier.

The four accused then proceeded to an area near the Makati Medical Center, stopping at a vacant lot where concrete pipes used for construction were lying. Patenio decided to end the night and stepped out of the videoke bar when he was approached by the accused. Patenio testified that the men taunted and physically harassed him in a playful manner. He heard one accused utter the injunction “Huwag nayan, lagas nayan,” apparently directed at a woman who was then boarding a jeepney. The word “lagas” meant “old” in Visayan dialect, and the tone of the remark was later treated as reflective of the attackers’ intent.

At about the same time, the victim (AAA) was walking towards the center island near Buendia Avenue and Ayala Avenue, accompanied by her officemate Minerva Arguelles Frias. The accused Laguit and Ladiao were seen standing near the corner of Ayala Avenue and Buendia Avenue and crossed the street to wait at the island. When Minerva boarded a bus and left the victim behind, the victim was left with Laguit and Ladiao. Patenio said that Laguit took off his shirt and laughed while waving it. Ladiao wore a smirk. Then Nabong appeared from the dark portion of the vacant lot and approached with a “kabilya,” described as a seven-inch pointed metal bar like an improvised ice pick. Patenio testified that Nabong suddenly stabbed the victim on the right thigh. At the same time, Ladiao jumped at the victim and covered her mouth. The victim collapsed on the pavement, and the group of Ladiao, Laguit, Nabong, and Miraflor crowded around her. Patenio testified that Miraflor hurriedly left and returned to the barracks, while Patenio also left the scene.

Additional witnesses placed the attackers at or near the same location and time. Ofelia A. Camba, a vendor at the RCBC Plaza, testified that between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m., she overheard men talking. She identified Nabong as the man standing who said “Huwag yan, lagas na yan,” which she understood as referring to the victim. Virginia Mabayao, another vendor, testified that around or before midnight, men told her “Hi, ate pakape ka naman,” and she observed that one of them held a piece of metal. She later heard from the barangay captain about the killing incident around 1:00 a.m. and subsequently identified the same men at the Makati police station as Nabong, Miraflor, and Laguit, with Nabong being the one who was standing. Minerva Arguelles Frias confirmed that she walked with the victim from the office and then left the victim on Ayala Avenue after boarding a bus.

The prosecution presented evidence from law enforcement and forensic witnesses on the circumstances and cause of death. Patrol officers testified that at around 11:45 p.m., they discovered the victim lying on the pavement with her undergarment pulled down and her brassiere torn such that her left breast was exposed, with her dress torn and raised. PO3 Libretto Buisan testified that the victim’s left side was heavily bloodied and blood was splattered on the street and the nearby vacant lot. A barangay traffic enforcer and Bantay Bayan carried the victim to the Makati Medical Center, and the victim was still breathing and moaning. PO2 Rico S. Bulacan conducted a spot investigation in the early morning of 24 March 1999, finding culvert pipes and a traffic post stained with blood, with laboratory examination yielding positive for human blood. An earring belonging to the victim was recovered near the concrete culvert pipes.

Police inspector Thomas C. Sipin testified that on 24 March 1999 he discovered bloodstains and took samples which tested positive as Type O human blood, and he subsequently coordinated with witnesses at the RCBC barracks. Security guard Pastor Maghamil testified that Patenio and Miraflor entered the barracks around 1:30 a.m. and that he saw a man wearing a bull cap, white cheleko vest, and pants walking normally towards Ayala Avenue Extension. Later, police inquired who among the workers arrived at dawn. The guard stated that Patenio and Miraflor did.

Most importantly, the medico-legal evidence established the nature and effect of the injuries. Dr. Ronaldo Mendez, medico-legal officer of the NBI, testified that the victim was stabbed six times using a sharp pointed single-bladed instrument: three stab wounds on the left chest, one on the right chest, one on the back right side at chest level, and one on the right thigh. He stated that the cause of death was hemoperigonio, meaning collection of blood in the abdominal cavity caused by the stab wounds.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC convicted Celino Nabong, Alvin Laguit, and Nolfe Ladiao beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of attempted rape with homicide under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. The RTC acquitted Arnel Miraflor for insufficiency of evidence. On 18 June 2002, the RTC imposed the death penalty on the three appellants and awarded civil damages: P50,000.00 as indemnity for the heirs of the victim, P111,239.00 as actual damages, P1,508,130.00 for loss of earning capacity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

Appellants’ Contentions and Trial Strategy

Before the Supreme Court, appellant Nabong assigned several errors. He contended that the courts failed to appreciate alleged motives of prosecution witness Patenio to perjure himself. He also argued that the evidence failed to show that the accused conspicuously adopted a “surprised attack” as a means of executing the crime, and he claimed that the evidence supported the appreciation of intoxication and low degree of instruction as mitigating circumstances. Finally, he argued that his fundamental right to legal counsel was violated when counsel allegedly failed to secure the attendance of defense witnesses, particularly a cousin who was said to support his defense of alibi.

Appellants Laguit and Ladiao assigned a single, overarching error grounded on reasonable doubt, claiming that the trial court gravely erred in not acquitting them.

All accused, for their part, presented the defenses of denial and alibi, coupled with the admission that they had been drinking. They claimed that after leaving the videoke bar and later drinking coffee at a nearby location, they went to their respective places of lodging and slept, and they denied involvement in the assault and killing.

Court’s Evaluation of Credibility and Proof of Conspiracy

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. It treated the prosecution’s evidence as sufficient, even if mostly circumstantial as to the execution details, to establish the complex crime beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied heavily on the trial court’s appreciation of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Patenio’s testimony, as well as the consistent corroboration by other witnesses in the area.

The Court noted that the injunctive remark “Huwag nayan, lagas nayan” was heard by more than one witness. Patenio testified that he heard one of the accused utter the same words while the victim was within the vicinity. Camba independently testified that Nabong uttered those words shortly before the incident and that she understood the remark as referring to the victim. This convergence supported the conclusion that the accused were already intent on a sexual assault targeted at the victim, and that the victim was singled out.

The Court also considered the victim’s physical condition when discovered. It observed that the victim’s undergarment had been pulled down with private parts almost exposed, her brassiere had been torn such that her left breast was exposed, and her dress had been torn and raised. The Court treated these conditions as “highly suggestive of force or violence applied… normally preparatory to sexual attack,” and it also credited testimony that Ladiao covered the victim’s mouth to prevent her from shouting for help. From these facts, the Court held that the attempted rape component could be proved through the circumstances attending the incident, even without direct evidence of the accused’s full execution.

As to the homicide aspect, the Court held that the killing by the appellants was established with moral certainty. It credited Patenio’s account that he saw Nabong strike the first blow, the stab wound on the victim’s thigh, and it reasoned that the remaining stab wounds need not be traced to each accused to sustain liability if conspiracy existed. The Court accepted the trial court’s conclusion that conspiracy was shown through the closeness and coordination of the assailants’ acts, their concerted effort to block the victim’s ability to escape or shout, and Ladiao’s covering of the victim’s mouth followed by Nabong’s stabbing to prevent escape.

The Supreme Court rejected the attempt to discredit Patenio. It found that allegations of motive to perjure were unsupported by sufficient proof of improper motive. It further stressed that Patenio’s candid admission that he felt resentful because the accused made fun of him did not, by itself, establish a retaliatory fabrication. The Court also ruled that Patenio being initially treated as a suspect did not undermine credibility since investigations often involve multiple suspects before identifying the real perpet

...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