Case Summary (G.R. No. 201867)
Procedural History
The accused were charged in two separate Informations: Criminal Case No. 97-1257 for Robbery and Criminal Case No. 97-1258 for Murder. After arraignment most pleaded not guilty except Edimar, Nestor, and Gerry who pleaded guilty. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 25, Cagayan De Oro City) rendered judgment on November 23, 2000 convicting all accused of Murder and Robbery and imposing heavy penalties (including death as then-authorized). The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on October 14, 2011, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court, whose decision under review is dated November 4, 2020.
Charged Offenses and Allegations
Robbery (Criminal Case No. 97-1257): accused collectively, with intent to gain and by violence and intimidation while armed, allegedly took movable properties of Judith Gunayan (air gun, radio, goat, two pigs, fighting cock, hen) valued at P7,700.00.
Murder (Criminal Case No. 97-1258): accused allegedly, with evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of superior strength and under cover of night, shot and then hacked Pepito A. Gunayan causing mortal wounds that resulted in his death.
Prosecution Evidence and Narrative
The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of Judith Gunayan and corroborating testimony including the NBI medico-legal autopsy and statements of guilty co-accused (Edimar, Nestor, Gerry). Judith recounted that on the evening of July 29, 1997 she and her husband were at home when persons outside identified themselves as local “ronda tanod” and threatened the family. Pepito went to the window and was immediately shot; the assailants then entered, hacked Pepito while he lay dying, hogtied Judith and stole several items. Judith positively identified several accused present at the scene and described specific acts by individuals (e.g., Jimmy taking an FM radio, Rogelio taking a bolo, Gerry tying Judith). Neighbors later freed Judith and found Pepito dead from gunshot and hack wounds.
Defense Case and Accounts by Accused
Several accused provided alibi testimony or denied participation (Arnold, Danny, Johnny, Rolando, Jimmy, Marque, Fernando, Rogelio, Dino). Other accused (Nestor, Gerry, Edimar, Maribel) gave testimony that admitted planning and participation: Nestor and Gerry pleaded guilty and described a meeting in the afternoon to plan Pepito’s killing, the use of “paleontod” firearms, the shooting by Edimar, the subsequent entry and hacking, and seizure of items. Maribel claimed coercion into participation and denied committing the killing. Edimar testified he was paid to kill Pepito and admitted shooting him when Pepito aimed a flashlight and gun.
RTC Findings and Judgment
The trial court found all 15 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in conspiracy, and guilty of Robbery. The RTC credited Judith’s positive and detailed identification; it found treachery, dwelling, nighttime, cruelty, taking advantage of superior strength, aid of armed men, and intoxication as aggravating circumstances, while recognizing spontaneous plea of guilty by some accused as mitigating (but offset by dwelling). The court sentenced most accused to death (then-authorized) for Murder and to reclusion perpetua for Robbery, ordered joint and several civil damages, and provided penalties for minors and others as reflected in the fallo.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s convictions for Murder and Robbery for most accused, finding Judith’s positive identifications corroborated by guilty pleas and other evidence. The CA applied R.A. No. 9346 (prohibiting the death penalty) and converted death sentences to reclusion perpetua. The CA remanded the case of Satorane Panggayong for proceedings under R.A. No. 9344 upon report indicating he was a minor at the time of the incident. The CA modified some awards and penalties consistent with statutory changes.
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Appellants raised multiple contentions, including: insufficiency of the Information for failing to specifically allege qualifying circumstances elevating the killing to murder; erroneous imposition of the death penalty and misappreciation of attendant circumstances; wrongful conviction of particular accused despite alibi or denial; failure to properly consider mitigating circumstances (voluntary plea/surrender/confession); and challenges to the finding of conspiracy and identification.
Supreme Court’s Standard of Review on Credibility and Conspiracy
The Supreme Court accorded deference to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, especially where the trial judge observed demeanor firsthand and that finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court held that conspiracy may be inferred from the mode and manner of perpetration; explicit prior agreement need not be proved if concerted action and community of purpose are demonstrated by conduct. The Court concluded appellants failed to show that the lower courts overlooked or misapprehended material facts warranting overturning the credibility findings or the conspiracy inference.
Sufficiency of the Information and Qualification to Murder
The Court analyzed the sufficiency requirements under Sections 6 and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court: the Information must state the name of the accused, statutory designation of the offense, acts constituting the offense, name of offended party, approximate time, and place. The Court found that treachery was expressly alleged in the Information for Criminal Case No. 97-1258 because the pleading described shooting Pepito on the head and then hacking him as he fell dying—facts that pled the elements of treachery. Evident premeditation, while referenced, lacked factual averments sufficient to be a pleaded qualifying circumstance and therefore could only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. The Court rejected appellants’ reliance on Alba and related arguments because treachery was specifically alleged and adequately apprised the accused.
Application of Treachery and Other Attendant Circumstances
The Court explained treachery’s two elements—victim’s inability to defend and the offender’s conscious adoption of a means or method of attack—were present: Pepito was unarmed and shot while looking out the window, and the subsequent hacking while he lay helpless confirmed the unexpected, sudden nature of the attack. Treachery, once proven and pleaded, qualified the killing to Murder and absorbed certain generic aggravating circumstances (abuse of superior strength, aid of armed men, and nighttime) unless those aggravators were shown to rest on different factual bases; the Court found nighttime was not separately proven to have been purposely sought.
Evident Premeditation, Cruelty, Dwelling, and Intoxication
Although the prosecution proved circumstances indicative of evident premeditation (afternoon meeting to plan, arming, lapse of six hours), the Court treated evident premeditation as a generic aggravating circumstance since the Information did not allege the factual acts necessary to constitute it as a pleaded qualifying circumstance. The Court, applying favorable precedent retroactively, disallowed consideration of cruelty, dwelling, and intoxication as aggravating circumstances because the amended Rules of Court require specific pleading of such attendant circumstances; the judgment was promulgated prior to some relevant doctrine yet the Court gave the favorable rule retroactive effect.
Mitigating Circumstances and Voluntary Surrender/Confession
The Court examined claims that voluntary surrender and plea of guilty should mitigate punishment for certain accused. It held that surrender must be spontaneous, acknowledge guilt, and relate to the crime being prosecuted; the lower courts rightly discounted any claimed surrender as mitigating where it related to other offenses. Voluntary confession of guilt, where present (e.g., Edimar, Nestor, Gerry), was credited as mitigating for robbery sentencing purposes, but the presence of only ordinary mitigating circumstances could not reduce indivisible penalties in murder to a lower degree where the statutory scheme forbids such reduction.
Murder Penalty and Statutory Changes
Under Article 248, treachery qualified the offense as Murder punishable by reclusion temporal to death (or reclusion perpetua to death using older formulations). Given R.A. No. 9346 abolishing the death penalty, the Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for the convicted appellants whose murder convictions were sustained.
Robbery: Separate Crime versus Robbery with Homicide
The Court clarified that the accused were charged with separate Robbery and Murder, not the complex crime “Robbery with Homicide.” It reiterated the legal distinction: Robbery with Homicide requires that robbery be the main objective and homicide incidental; where the original plan was killing (revenge) and robbery followed incidentally, the proper convictions are Murder and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 201867)
Case Caption, Court and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners/appellants: Rogelio Natindim; Jimmy P. Macana; Rolando A. Lopez; Danny A. Piano; Arnold A. Araneta; Johnny O. Lopez; Satorane Panggayong; Nestor Labita; Carlito Panggayong; Gerry Lopez Natindim; Edimar Panggayong; Marque B. Clarin; plus other co-accused including Dino and Fernando (later deceased) and Maribel Sinukat (at large).
- Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Lower courts: Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City (Judgment promulgated November 23, 2000); Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification (Decision dated October 14, 2011).
- Present decision: Supreme Court (Third Division) reviewed appeal from CA decision (G.R. No. 201867, November 04, 2020).
- Charges: Two separate Informations — Criminal Case No. 97-1257 for Robbery; Criminal Case No. 97-1258 for Murder (both dated July 29, 1997, at Sitio Sta. Cruz, Dansolihon, Cagayan de Oro City).
- Appellants’ procedural actions: At arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty except Edimar, Nestor, and Gerry who pleaded guilty; trial on the merits followed and appeals were filed to the CA and subsequently to the Supreme Court.
Facts as Presented by the Prosecution (Judith Gunayan’s Testimony and Corroboration)
- Date, time and place: Around 9:00 p.m., July 29, 1997, at the residence of spouses Pepito A. Gunayan and Judith Gunayan, Sitio Sta. Cruz, Dansolihon, Cagayan de Oro City.
- Sequence of events per prosecution:
- While Judith, Pepito, and their two minor children were dining, they heard hushed conversation outside and the cocking of a paleontod (homemade shotgun).
- Pepito went to their bedroom window to look outside; a gunshot was fired, striking Pepito and knocking him to the floor.
- Men outside announced themselves as “Ronda Tanod kami sa Mambuaya” and threatened to “count to three” and massacre the occupants if they did not come out; Judith recognized at least one neighbor (Rolando) outside.
- Judith and children went downstairs; she encountered persons she identified as Dino, Marque, Fernando, and Danny; she also identified Gerry and others by sight and familiarity from the neighborhood, fiestas and schooling.
- Individuals entered the house; hacking sounds were heard inside; Jimmy and Rogelio were observed with weapons and to have taken or handed out items (FM radio, air gun, bolo).
- Satorane allegedly shouted “Attack!”; various accused were seen taking or carrying away a goat, a hen, a fighting cock, two pigs, an FM radio, and an air gun.
- Judith was hogtied; Gerry tied her hands with rope and warned her not to shout; Maribel intervened when Dino poked the paleontod at Judith’s head; Carlito allegedly assaulted her sexually (mashed her vagina).
- The group left; neighbors later responded, untied Judith and found Pepito slumped with gunshot and hack wounds.
- Items allegedly taken and values (total P7,700.00): air gun P3,000.00; FM radio P500.00; goat P600.00; two pigs P3,000.00; fighting cock P500.00; hen P100.00.
- Corroboration for prosecution:
- Autopsy report of NBI medico-legal officer corroborated fatal wounds.
- Testimonies of Edimar, Nestor, and Gerry, who pleaded guilty and admitted involvement, provided corroborative admissions that supported portions of Judith’s narrative.
Defense Version of Events and Testimonies by Accused
- Common defensive themes: denial of participation; alibi claims; partial admissions or narrative differences by those who pleaded guilty; claims of coerced participation by some witnesses (Maribel).
- Nestor Labita:
- Pleaded guilty; testified that he and companions met at about 3:00 p.m. at Kibonhog Forest, planned to kill Pepito, armed themselves with paleontods, and proceeded to Pepito’s house at about 9:30 p.m.
- Admitted Edimar shot Pepito and that Gerry hacked Pepito; admitted taking the air gun and FM radio but denied taking the goat and pigs.
- Gerry Natindim:
- Pleaded guilty; testified meeting with group at 3:00 p.m. to exact revenge because Pepito boxed Gerry earlier; stated Edimar shot Pepito; claimed he hacked Pepito; admitted taking the air gun, radio, fighting cock and hen but denied taking goat and pigs.
- Claimed robbery was not the original intent; said they stayed in Salimbal forest for a month before surrendering.
- Maribel Sinukat:
- Denied killing Pepito but alleged she was forcibly taken by Satorane and others and threatened; claimed group agreed to kill Pepito during drinking and that Edimar shot Pepito; corroborated that accused carried paleontods.
- Edimar Panggayong:
- Pleaded guilty; testified he was instructed by one Usting de la Peña and promised payment to kill Pepito; admitted drinking with companions, going to Pepito’s residence, and shooting Pepito after Pepito aimed his air gun at them.
- Admitted taking items from spouses Gunayan and joining others in the act.
- Appellants asserting alibi/denial with specific claims:
- Arnold Araneta: Claimed he spent the night at in-laws near Lumbia Airport and returned home the next morning; denied familiarity with several accused and denied presence at Sta. Cruz.
- Danny Piano: Claimed working at construction site in Kitamban, Binuangan; denied knowing the Panggayongs and Nestor; admitted acquaintance with Gerry, Dino, and Maribel.
- Johnny Lopez: Claimed he was at home with family in Kawilihan, denied participation and knowledge of some accused, but knew Gerry and Maribel.
- Rolando Lopez: Claimed he was sleeping at home with family; denied being a neighbor to spouses Gunayan and denied participating; admitted seeing Pepito at a fiesta and knew various co-accused.
- Jimmy Macana: Claimed he was sleeping at home in Dalican, denied knowledge of Pepito and Judith, denied stealing the air gun, and denied knowing the Panggayong brothers and Nestor though he admitted other acquaintances.
- Marque Clarin: Claimed he was at home sleeping with family, denied knowledge or acquaintance with certain accused and denied participation.
- Fernando Piano: Claimed working earlier in the day and cooking dinner at home; admitted friendships with the Gunayans but denied participation; observed Gerry with Maribel and four others carrying firearms the night after the killing.
- Rogelio Natindim: Claimed he was at home with family at 9:00 p.m., denied participation, denied knowing spouses Gunayan.
- Dino Natindim: Claimed he was having dinner at employer’s house at around 9:00 p.m., denied participation, denied knowing spouses Gunayan but admitted acquaintance with several accused.
Issues Raised on Appeal before the Supreme Court
- Central issues raised by appellants included:
- Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants of murder where the qualifying circumstances that would elevate the killing to murder were not specifically alleged in the Information.
- Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty (in the RTC judgment) given erroneous appreciation of attendant circumstances (penalty issues later affected by R.A. No. 9346).
- Whether the trial court erred in finding specific accused (Arnold, Marque, Rolando, Johnny, Danilo, Rogelio, and Jimmy) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and robbery despite their denials and alibi defenses.
- Additional contentions by Arnold that prosecution failed to overcome presumption of innocence and failed to show conspiracy or evident premeditation as to him.
- Claims by Carlito and Edimar that the trial court erred in not properly appreciating mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty and voluntary surrender.
- Notable procedural developments:
- Deaths of Dino, Fernando, and Rolando during pendency of the case; Maribel escaped from detention and remained at large.
- CA remanded Satorane’s case to RTC for action under Section 51 of R.A. No. 9344 on report he was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (November 23, 2000)
- Merits:
- Found all 15 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in conspiracy and of Robbery with violence or intimidation.
- Credited Judith’s testimony as candid, positive, and corroborated by medico-legal findings and admissions by Gerry, Edimar, and Nestor.
- Rejected denials and alibi defenses of many accused due to failure to show impossibility of presence at scene at ~9:00 p.m. and lack of corroborative witnesses.
- Attending circumstances found and assessed:
- Found as aggravating and qualifying circumstances: dwelling, treachery, nighttime, cruelty, with the aid of armed men, taking advantage of superior strength, and intoxication.
- Found mitigating circumstance for Gerry, Nestor and Edimar: spontaneous plea of guilty (voluntary confession/surrender) but offset by aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
- Penalties and damages (RTC fallo):
- Imposed death by lethal injection on 15 named accused for Murder (as trial court applied Article 248 with aggravating circumstances