G.R. No. 135022 - People vs. Dela Cruz

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135022)

Factual Background

According to the Information, petitioners, allegedly conspiring and aiding one another, attacked and assaulted Elner Aro y Laruan on April 11, 2004 at Ambongdolan, Tublay, Benguet, inflicting blunt traumatic injuries to his abdomen. Prosecution witness Edward Benito testified that at about three o’clock in the afternoon he saw Aro sprawled on the ground; he observed Wacoy kick Aro twice in the stomach, saw Wacoy pick up a rock but be restrained from throwing it, and saw Quibac thereafter punch Aro in the stomach causing him to collapse. Aro was then taken to the hospital.

Medical and Forensic Findings

Hospital diagnosis recorded blunt abdominal trauma with injury to the jejunum and identified a perforation on the ileum with generalized peritonitis; Aro suffered cardiopulmonary arrest during an operation, was resuscitated, lapsed into a coma, was discharged against medical advice, and died the next day. The death certificate listed cause of death as “cardiopulmonary arrest antecedent to a perforated ileum and generalized peritonitis secondary to mauling.” An autopsy, however, reported the cause of death as “rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt traumatic injuries.”

Defendants' Account

Wacoy and Quibac denied criminal liability and presented a version in which Aro was intoxicated and unruly. They claimed that Wacoy picked up a stone to throw at Aro but was pacified by Quibac, that a companion of Aro engaged in a fist fight with Wacoy, and that Quibac intervened to pacify and tell Wacoy to go home. They maintained that any blows were not concerted to kill.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC found petitioners guilty of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 of the RPC in its Judgment dated February 28, 2011. The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence of six months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, and ordered payment of P25,000.00 temperate damages, P50,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto, and P50,000.00 moral damages. The RTC reasoned that conspiracy was not proven and that the medical reports did not categorically show that the injuries inflicted by petitioners directly caused Aro’s death.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The CA reversed and modified the RTC’s conviction to one of Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC by Decision dated December 6, 2013. The CA found Benito’s testimony simple, direct, and credible, and concluded that only two persons, petitioners, assaulted Aro, negating the elements of a tumultuous affray. The CA appreciated the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and adjusted the indeterminate sentence to six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The CA also imposed legal interest at six percent per annum on the damages awarded by the RTC. Motions for reconsideration were denied by Resolution dated July 21, 2014.

Issue Before the Court

The Supreme Court framed the core issue as whether the CA correctly found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC.

Supreme Court's Holding

The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s conversion of the conviction to Homicide with modification to the awards and sentences, and upheld the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Article 13(3) of the RPC.

Legal Basis: Tumultuous Affray versus Homicide

The Court analyzed the statutory elements of Article 251 and of Article 249. It reiterated that Article 251 requires several persons quarrelling and assaulting one another in a confused and tumultuous manner such that it is not ascertainable who actually killed the deceased. The Court found those elements absent because the evidence established that only two persons, petitioners, attacked a single defenseless individual in a non-reciprocal manner. Because petitioners were identified as the assailants who inflicted the injuries, the case did not fit the statutory scheme of death caused in a tumultuous affray. The Court therefore sustained the CA’s conclusion that petitioners’ mauling of Aro was the proximate cause of his death and warranted conviction for Homicide.

Legal Basis: Intent, Article 49, and praeter intentionem

The Court rejected petitioners’ contention that Article 49 obliged imposition of the penalty for a lesser intended offense in its maximum period. The Court explained that Article 49 applies where the crime committed is different from that intended and where the felonious act befell a different person (error in personae), not where greater consequences than intended ensue from the same felonious act (praeter intentionem). The Court reiterated the settled proposition that if a victim dies because of a deliberate act by the aggressors, intent to kill is presumed, and that in crimes of personal violence the law looks to material results and holds the aggressor responsible for their consequences. Nonetheless, the Court found that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Article 13(3) applied because the evidence did not show acts beyond kicking and punching the stomach that would evince intent to kill.

Mitigating Circumstance and Penalty Determination

The Court held that the mitigating circumstance warranted reduction of the penalty to the minimum of the penalty for Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court approved the CA’s imposition of an indeterminate term of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Damages and Interest

The Court increased the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages from P50,000.00 each to P75,000.00 each to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, retained the temperate damages of P25,000.00, and affirmed imposition of interest

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 135022)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner Guillermo Wacoy y Bitol was criminally charged in the Regional Trial Court of Benguet, Branch Ten for an offense arising from an altercation that occurred on April 11, 2004.
Petitioner James Quibac y Rafael was joined as a co-accused in the same Information for the same incident and was separately represented on appeal.
Respondent People of the Philippines prosecuted both accused for the crime charged in the Information.
The RTC convicted petitioners of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed penalties and damages.
The Court of Appeals modified the conviction to Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and adjusted the penalty and damages.
The petitioners sought review by petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court contesting the CA Decision dated December 6, 2013 and Resolution dated July 21, 2014.

Key Factual Allegations

Prosecution witness Edward Benito testified that at about three o'clock in the afternoon of April 11, 2004, he saw the victim Elner Aro sprawled on the ground and observed Wacoy kick Aro twice and Quibac punch Aro in the stomach, after which Aro was taken to the hospital.
Medical findings at the hospital revealed perforation of the ileum, generalized peritonitis, and air and fluid in the peritoneum, and the death certificate listed cardiopulmonary arrest antecedent to perforated ileum and generalized peritonitis secondary to mauling.
An autopsy on Aro's remains, however, disclosed that the cause of death was rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt traumatic injuries.
Petitioners maintained that Aro was drunk and unruly, that they only sought to pacify him, that a stone was picked up but not thrown, and that the affray involved another individual named Kinikin who also engaged in the scuffle.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found that conspiracy was not proven and that the medical reports did not categorically establish that the injuries personally inflicted by the accused led directly to Aro's death.
The RTC thus convicted petitioners of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, together with damages of P25,000.00 temperate, P50,000.00 civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 moral damages.
The RTC discredited the contention that the accused conspired and found insufficient proof that petitioners' individual acts caused the death attributed to the mauling.

Court of Appeals Findings

The CA credited Benito as a simple, direct, and straightforward witness and found no proof of ill motive despite his familial relation to the victim.
The CA concluded that only two persons, Wacoy and Quibac, inflicted harm on a defenseless Aro and that there was no tumultuous affray among several persons as required by Article 251.
The CA modified the conviction to Homicide under Article 249 with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code and adjusted the indeterminate penalty to six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.
The CA increased the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to conform with jurisprudence and imposed six percent inte