G.R. No. 95355 - People vs. Robedillo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 95355)

Facts as Alleged in the Information

The information charged that on or about May 30, 1988, in Tolosa, Leyte, the accused—acting with decided intent to kill and conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another—employed treachery and took advantage of superior strength. It alleged that the accused wilfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted, stabbed, and hacked Martiano Cinco using bladed weapons they had provided for that purpose. The information further alleged that the resulting wounds on the head, chest, and back directly caused the victim’s death shortly thereafter.

Prosecution Evidence: Two Eyewitnesses

Trial proceeded as to all accused except Artemio Artem Novio, who was and remained at large. The prosecution relied on two eyewitnesses: Sammy Cinco, the victim’s son who was sixteen years old, and Eufrocina Cinco, the victim’s common-law wife.

Sammy testified that at about 4 p.m. of May 30, 1988, he and his father went to the house of Felicisimo Novio because they had been invited by Artemio Novio, who announced there would be a party at that house. The four accused were among the guests invited. After eating, Sammy waited outside under a jackfruit tree. He then saw his father jump out through the balcony and run past him. Sammy reported that all four accused pursued the victim, each armed with bolos. He saw that the victim was already wounded on the back and bleeding profusely. The pursuers caught up with the victim in a nearby ricefield. Sammy hid behind ornamental plants and observed that the victim knelt with both hands raised, pleading for mercy as he was surrounded. Sammy stated that this was his father’s last deliberate act. He testified that Artemio and Anacleto Novio began the assault from the front, followed closely by Eduardo Robedillo delivering hacking blows to the right side. From behind, Artemio Yepes stabbed the victim on the back. Sammy further stated that the accused then took turns striking until the victim fell face first. After witnessing the assault, Sammy fled home and reported the incident to his brother.

Eufrocina testified that at the time of the killing, she was at home doing household chores in a house about one hundred meters away from where the victim had gone. She heard people shout and went out. She saw Martiano Cinco kneeling with his hands up approximately eighty meters away, while the four accused—armed with bolos—surrounded him. She initially covered her eyes because she could not bear the sight but later looked again. She saw the accused hack at their victim and saw him hit the ground. She stated that while the other three accused left, Robedillo continued attacking her husband even after the others had departed. She then testified that Robedillo walked toward her house and shouted, “Who else is aggrieved?” She responded by telling Eduardo that it was enough because he had already killed her husband. She suspected Robedillo had harbored resentment because the victim had filed a complaint against Robedillo for the theft of a pig. She stated that Robedillo’s wife came and took him away, and this permitted her to report the killing to the police.

Medical Findings: Post-Mortem Examination

Dr. Alicia S. Songalia, Municipal Health Officer of Tolosa, Leyte, conducted the post-mortem examination. She found the victim had suffered eleven wounds in various parts of the body, consisting of incised wounds, stabbed wounds, lacerated wounds, and an injury involving the finger metacarpo-phalangeal joint. The listed cause of death was hypovolemic shock, secondary multiple stab wounds.

Defense Evidence: Alibi and Denial

Artemio Artem Yepes testified on his behalf and essentially relied on alibi. Eduardo Eddie Robedillo did not testify and did not present evidence, though he was represented by counsel. Anacleto Yontong Novio denied participation in the killing and testified that he was in the afternoon of the incident on the balcony of his mother’s house about two meters away from his brother’s house. He claimed that he saw the victim come out of the front door of his brother’s residence, followed by Robedillo and Artemio Novio coming from the kitchen door. He stated that Robedillo and Novio were pursuing the deceased. He claimed he ran after them and shouted at them to stop because they were armed with bolos, but they did not heed him. He insisted he had no reason to kill the victim, who was his neighbor and friend, and asserted he was falsely accused by Eufrocina because he had stabbed her first husband in an altercation in 1982, which he claimed was settled amicably.

Procedural Developments Affecting the Appeal

A death certificate submitted by the accused-appellants’ former counsel indicated that Artemio Yepes died in September 1989, the same month the RTC decision was promulgated. The Court noted that although Robedillo was in custody, he had not been ordered committed to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, as required by Circular No. 4-92-A of the Court. It also appeared that Anacleto Novio had jumped bail and was not apprehended, despite warrants for his arrest issued on November 21, 1989 and January 22, 1990. The records did not mention whether his bail bond had been ordered forfeited. Because of these matters, the Court ruled that, pursuant to Rule 125 in relation to Rule 124, section 8, the appeal should be dismissed as to Anacleto Novio. The Court also dismissed Artemio Yepes’ appeal because of his death.

After those rulings, only the appeal of Eduardo Robedillo remained for decision.

Issue Raised by Eduardo Eddie Robedillo

Robedillo assigned as error that the trial court had gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants of murder instead of the lesser offense of homicide. He invoked People v. Narciso, where the Court held that the qualifying circumstance of the use of superior strength could not be considered if the accused delivered blows alternately and one after the other. He argued that the manner of striking in his case should preclude appreciation of superior strength and thus justify a conviction for homicide instead of murder.

The Court’s Treatment of the Narciso Argument

The Court rejected the reliance on People v. Narciso on the ground that the facts were materially different. In Narciso, the Court observed that there was neither an allegation nor proof of conspiracy among the accused. There was also no proof that they had taken advantage of their numerical superiority to kill the victim. By contrast, the evidence in the present case showed that the accused acted in concert to kill the victim. The Court emphasized that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove a prior agreement to take advantage of numerical superiority. Conspiracy was not shown to require a previous plan or agreement to commit the assault; it sufficed that at the time of the aggression, all accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack.

The Court further reasoned that although the accused may have alternated in striking, the proximity in time of their individual blows, combined with the fact that they surrounded the victim so as to block his escape and prevent him from defending himself, demonstrated the collective force employed to commit the crime. The Court held that the conspiracy to use superior strength resulting from their greater number was shown not only by the eyewitness testimonies but also by the number and nature of the stab wounds inflicted.

Evaluation of Anacleto Novio’s Denial and Conduct After Conviction

Although the appeal of Anacleto Novio was dismissed, the Court stated that it still reviewed the evidence as to him. It observed that Novio claimed lack of motive, but his denial could not prevail over the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the accused. The Court also considered his escape after conviction as an indication of guilt, invoking the proverb that the guilty flee even when no one pursues, while the innocent are as bold as the lion.

Disposition and Modification of Civil Indemnity

The Court affirmed the RTC decision in so far as Robedillo’s conviction for murder was concerned. However, given the lapse of time caused by the appe

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 95355)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted Eduardo Eddie Robedillo, Artemio Artem Yepes, Artemio Artem Novio, and Anacleto Yontong Novio for murder.
The case originated from the Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region in Palo, Leyte, which convicted Robedillo and Novio (together with Yepes, then still living) of murder.
The RTC sentenced each convicted accused to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordered joint and several indemnity to the heirs of the victim Martiano Cinco in the amount of P 30,000.00.
Trial proceeded against all accused except Artemio Artem Novio, who was and remains at large.
On appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal of Anacleto Yontong Novio for procedural reasons linked to bail and Rule 125 in relation to Rule 124.
The Court also dismissed the appeal of Artemio Artem Yepes as a consequence of his death.
The Court treated Eduardo Eddie Robedillo’s appeal as the only remaining appeal on record.
The Court affirmed the RTC conviction for murder, while modifying the civil indemnity.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that on or about May 30, 1988, in Tolosa, Leyte, the accused conspired to attack, assault, stab, and hack Martiano Cinco.
The information alleged the use of bladed weapons provided by the accused for the purpose of killing.
The information alleged the presence of treachery and the taking advantage of superior strength.
The information alleged that the wounds inflicted on the head, chest, and back directly caused Martiano Cinco’s death shortly thereafter.
The RTC treated the evidence as proving that the accused acted in concert to kill the victim using bolos and repeated blows.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses: Sammy Cinco (the victim’s then sixteen-year-old son) and Eufrocina Cinco (the victim’s common-law wife).
Sammy Cinco testified that he and the victim went to the house of Felicisimo Novio at the invitation of Artemio Novio, where a party was allegedly being held.
Sammy stated that after eating, he waited outside under a jackfruit tree and saw the victim jump out through the balcony and run past him.
Sammy testified that he saw all four accused pursuing the victim and that each was armed with bolos.
Sammy testified that the victim was wounded on the back and was profusely bleeding.
Sammy testified that the accused caught up with the victim in a nearby ricefield and surrounded him.
Sammy described that the victim knelt with both hands raised, pleading for mercy, as Artemio and Anacleto Novio began the assault from the front and Robedillo followed closely with hacking blows to the victim’s right side.
Sammy testified that from behind, Artemio Yepes stabbed the victim on the back.
Sammy testified that the four then took turns striking until the victim fell face first.
Sammy fled and later reported the incident to his brother.
Eufrocina Cinco testified that she heard shouts and saw the victim kneeling with his hands up while the four accused, all armed with bolos, surrounded him about 80 meters away.
Eufrocina first covered her eyes but later managed to look and saw the accused hacking the victim.
Eufrocina testified that Robedillo continued attacking even after the other three left.
Eufrocina testified that after the killing, Robedillo walked toward her house and shouted, “Who else is aggrieved?”
Eufrocina testified that she told Robedillo it was enough because he had already killed her husband.
Eufrocina stated that she suspected Robedillo harbored resentment because the victim had filed a complaint against Robedillo for theft of a pig.
Eufrocina testified that Robedillo’s wife intervened and took him away, and that she then reported the killing to the police.

Medical Findings

The Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Alicia S. Songalia, conducted the post-mortem examination.
The post-mortem revealed eleven wounds in various parts of the body.
The documented injuries included head, chest, stab wounds to the body’s right and left areas, and multiple incised and lacerated wounds, including an injury affecting the lung tissue and blood vessels.
The post-mortem report listed the cause of death as hypovolemic shock, secondary to multiple stab wounds.

Defense Evidence

Artemio Artem Yepes testified for the defense and essentially claimed alibi.
Eduardo Eddie Robedillo did not testify or present evidence on his behalf, though he was represented by counsel.
Anacleto Yontong Novio testified for the defense and denied involvement.
Anacleto Novio claimed he was in the balcony of his mother’s house and about two meters away from the house of his brother Felicisimo.
He claimed he saw the victim come out of his brother’s front door followed by Robedillo and Artemio Novio emerging from the kitchen.
Anacleto Novio claimed the two accused were pursuing the victim and that he ran after them, shouted for them to stop, and saw they were armed with bolos.
He claimed he had no reason to kill the victim, whom he described as his neighbor and friend.
Anacleto Novio claimed false accusation based on a prior altercation involving Eufrocina’s first husband in 1982, and asserted the matter had been settled amicably.
The Court found that Anacleto Novio’s denial