548 Phil. 72
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
That on or about the 13th day of December, 2000 in the municipality of Norzagaray, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a pill box and with intent to kill one Eleuterio Lucas, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault, and throw pill box on the said Eleuterio Lucas, hitting the latter on the head thereby inflicting serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.When arraigned on June 15, 2001, appellant pleaded not guilty[2] and trial on the merits ensued.
Contrary to law.
On December 13, 2000, between 9:00 o'clock and 10:00 o'clock in the evening, victim Eleuterio Lucas was having a drinking spree at his residence in upper Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan with a group that included his brother, his bestfriend and Orlando Cabinan, brother of the accused-appellant. A commotion broke out after an altercation ensued between Eleuterio's bestfriend and Orlando Cabinan. Eleuterio tried to pacify them. Orlando then left the place and went to a nearby billiard hall where his brother, accused-appellant Rolando Cabinan, was playing billiards. Orlando told the accused-appellant about the fight and immediately, the two (2) brothers proceeded to the house of Eleuterio.
When the Cabinan brothers reached Eleuterio's house, Orlando had a fistfight with one of the guests of victim Eleuterio. Eleuterio again tried to diffuse the fight, but accused-appellant Rolando threw the bottle of gin he was holding, hitting Eleuterio on the head. The bottle exploded due to the impact. Accused-appellant ran away after the explosion. Victim Eleuterio, on the other hand, was rushed to the hospital, but because of the injuries he sustained, he still died at the East Avenue Medical Center in Quezon City.
Dr. Ivan Richard A. Viray, a medico-legal officer, conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of Eleuterio. Medico-legal Report No. MA-403-2000 embodying the results of his examination states that the cause of the victim's death is "intracranial hemorrhage as a result of a blast injury, head."
Only the accused-appellant testified for his defense. He alleged that on December 13, 2000, he was playing billiards at a billiard hall in Liwasan, Norzagaray, Bulacan when his brother Orlando, together with Roberto Policarpio, sought his help because of a mauling incident in Bigte. Immediately, they proceeded to the place of the incident and upon reaching the place, Roberto and Eleuterio engaged into a fistfight. Accused-appellant then saw a bottle of gin on the ground, picked up the bottle, and then threw it to the fighting duo. To his surprise, the bottle exploded. He then ran away from the scene of the fight.[3]
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Rolando Cabinan, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of the deceased the following sums of money, to wit:On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Decision of the trial court, thus:SO ORDERED.[5]
- P60,000.00 as civil indemnity;
- P50,000.00 as moral damages;
- P60,000.00 as actual damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that in lieu of the awards made by the trial court in favor of the heirs of victim Eleuterio Lucas, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the following amounts:Hence, this appeal.(a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;SO ORDERED.[6]
(b) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
(c) P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
Accused himself admitted having thrown the explosive bottle albeit disclaiming knowledge of its contents and that it was specifically directed at the deceased, as according to him, it was merely his intention to pacify Policarpio and the deceased who were then exchanging fist blows. This Court finds this excuse of the accused flimsy because of the following considerations, to wit:The Court of Appeals likewise found that:
- Accused came to the scene of the incident at the instance of his brother who summoned him at the billiard hall with the information that the deceased and his group had mauled him. In other words, accused did not materialize at the scene by accident. Instead, he went there purposely to help his brother, hence, the bottle was already in his possession at the time not that he merely picked it up at random on the street;
- Had it been true that he was merely after the pacification of the two (2) protagonists, Policarpio and the deceased, he could have resorted to peaceful means by shouting at them or dousing them with water not threw a bottle with a deadly contents at them;
- A bottle filled with explosives would surely look different from an ordinary bottle. This Court, needless to state, finds the disclaimer of the accused, as aforestated, a mere afterthought on his part to save himself from the consequences of his criminal act.[12]
[T]he accused-appellant used a "home-made bomb" to kill victim Eleuterio. His knowledge that the bottle was an explosive and his intent to kill the victim can be reasonably deduced from the means and manner by which the attack was made. As per the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, accused-appellant deliberately positioned himself at the back of the victim before throwing the bottle and hitting the victim on the head. Death can be presumed from the use of the improvised bomb, considering the intensive damage that normally results from such weapon. True enough, Eleuterio died due to the degree of injuries he sustained. It is thus clear that accused-appellant really intended to cause the death of the victim rather than to simply quell the fight between Orlando and Eleuterio.We agree with the trial court that appellant is guilty of murder. Appellant's attack was treacherous; it was sudden and made from behind, catching the victim unaware and unable to defend himself, thus:
Accused-appellant's claim that he did not know that the bottle of gin was actually an explosive fails to persuade. He admitted having been at the scene of the crime because his brother sought his help after a mauling incident in Liwasan, Norzagaray. Evidently, he went to the crime scene purposely to take vengeance for his brother. If he really wanted to stop a duel he witnessed when he arrived there, then he could have resorted to peaceful and reasonable means to achieve this purpose. The circumstances that, first, the bottle of gin thrown against the victim turned out to be an explosive, and second, the victim was hit exactly in the head are clear indicators of the malicious intent of the accused-appellant.[13]
Treachery attended the killing of the deceased. The attack was not only from behind but was also sudden, unexpected, without warning and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression, as in fact, the deceased did not sense any danger that he would be assaulted by the accused as there was no grudge or misunderstanding between them.[14]Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.[15]