Sison vs. People

Factual Background

On July 27, 1986, a rally by persons identified as Marcos loyalists at the Luneta was dispersed by police for lack of permit. Later that afternoon a small group of loyalists encountered and confronted a man in a yellow shirt, identified as Stephen Salcedo, who was associated with supporters of President Aquino. Bystanders and two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, described how a group of loyalists boxed, kicked, and pummeled Salcedo with fists, kicks and stones as he fled from the Chinese Garden to the Rizal Monument and along Roxas Boulevard until he collapsed and lost consciousness. Salcedo was transported to hospitals and died of intracranial hemorrhage; post-mortem findings showed multiple contusions, lacerations and skull fractures consistent with blows from hard or blunt objects.

Arrests, Investigations and Evidence Collected

The mauling attracted national attention and prompted police investigation at the behest of the Chief Executive and the Capital Regional Command; a P10,000 reward was offered by Brigadier General Alfredo Lim for information leading to arrests. Several suspects were apprehended after identification by witnesses. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses including the two eyewitnesses, police officers, medico-legal testimony of Dr. Roberto Garcia, newspaper accounts and extensive photographic and video exhibits documenting the mauling.

Trial Court Proceedings and Decision

At trial the accused pleaded not guilty and presented alibis and denials. The trial court heard eyewitness testimony, police testimony, medico-legal findings and received photographs and press publications into evidence. On December 16, 1988, the trial court convicted Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo as principals in the crime of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to indeterminate terms of reclusion temporal; it convicted Annie Ferrer as an accomplice; it acquitted several other accused for insufficiency of proof. The trial court ordered payment of P74,000.00 actual damages and P30,000.00 moral and exemplary damages jointly and severally against the convicted, among other orders.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Certification

The Court of Appeals, in its December 28, 1992 decision, modified the trial court judgment by acquitting Annie Ferrer, increasing the punishment of Sison, Pacadar, Tan, and de los Santos to reclusion perpetua after finding murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, and downgrading Tamayo to homicide because the information did not allege the qualifying circumstance. Because reclusion perpetua was imposed on four accused-appellants, the Court of Appeals certified the cases to the Supreme Court for review.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The accused-appellants assigned errors challenging (a) the credibility and reliability of eyewitnesses Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, alleging possible motive from the reward and inconsistencies; (b) the admission and probative value of numerous photographic and documentary exhibits; (c) the sufficiency of proof that any accused wielded a hard and blunt object causing the fatal injury; (d) the existence of conspiracy among the accused; and (e) the proper legal characterization of the crime as murder or death in a tumultuous affray and the application of qualifying circumstances such as treachery and evident premeditation.

Supreme Court on Witness Credibility and Corroboration

The Supreme Court affirmed that trial courts are best situated to evaluate witness demeanor and credibility and declined to displace those assessments absent compelling reasons. The Court noted that Sumilang reported the incident to police within hours and executed a sworn statement promptly, and that Banculo’s multiple sworn statements and a mistaken identification on the stand did not render his testimony entirely incredible. The Court held that minor inconsistencies did not vitiate the core identification testimony. It found that Sumilang’s and Banculo’s accounts corroborated each other and were supported by medical evidence and by photographic and documentary exhibits.

Supreme Court on Photographic and Documentary Evidence

The Supreme Court reviewed objections to the admissibility of photographs and press clippings and reiterated the rule that photographs should be identified by the photographer or by competent witnesses as faithful representations. The Court found that several accused had themselves adopted and used the photographs in their defense to show nonparticipation, which constituted an admission of their accuracy. Other witnesses, including police operatives, sufficiently identified the photographs. The Court therefore gave evidentiary weight to the photographic exhibits which showed several accused in belligerent poses around the victim.

Supreme Court on the Nature of the Affray and Qualifying Circumstances

The Supreme Court evaluated whether the killing was murder or death in a tumultuous affray under Article 251. The Court concluded that the incident did not constitute a mutual, reciprocal quarrel among persons but a focused and prolonged attack by a group upon one defenseless individual. The Court rejected treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder because the attack was not proved to have been designed to preclude the victim’s defense by means of treacherous stratagems; it found the attack to be sudden and provoked by partisan animosity rather than premeditated treachery. The Court also held that evident premeditation was not shown. The Court did find, however, that a conspiracy existed among the assailants, as their collective and concerted actions implied a unity of purpose to bring about Salcedo’s death; where conspiracy is proved, liability for all acts of the conspirators follows and specific identification of the fatal blow is unnecessary.

Supreme Court’s Findings as to Guilt and Penalties

The Supreme Court affirmed and modified the Court of Appeals’ disposition: it found Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, and Richard de los Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder without treachery or evident premeditation and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The Court found Joselito Tamayo guilty of homicide with the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court acquitted Annie Ferrer consistent with the Court of Appeals’ action.

Damages, Indemnity and Costs

The Supreme Court increased moral damages from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00 and awarded an indemn