861 Phil. 1080
REYES, J. JR., J.:
The Issue Presented
Pespenian's admission puts him on the crime scene while a crime was being committed. His admission contradicts his claim that the prosecution witnesses did not see him because it was dark.
Direct Examination of Pespenian - TSN dated October 1, 2010, pp. 8-10 Q: You mentioned awhile ago that after fishing you went home, did you arrive to your house? A: No. Q: Why? A: We met the victim there at the road. Q: Meaning to say, you met Brigido Colminas at the road when you were on your way home? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And when you met, what happened next? A: He approached us. Q: And after that what happened? A: That's the time that the incident happened because he approached us. Q: What did he do when he [approached] you and Ireneo Salili? A: I saw Brigido Colminas was carrying a knife. Q: You mentioned awhile ago that Brigido Colminas approached you and he was then during that time carrying a knife. So, when [he] approached you, what happened next? A: Ireneo Salili and Brigido Colminas were grappling each other [for] the knife. x x x x Q: What did you do when you saw them grappling with each other with a knife? A: I left them and I proceeded my way to my home. Q: You did not bother to pacify? A: No, I did not because I was already afraid.
From the foregoing stenographic notes and the Post Mortem Examination Report,[21] the elements of murder are sufficiently established that: 1) a person was killed; 2) the accused killed him; 3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and 4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[22]
Direct Examination of Pilota - TSN dated September 3, 2004, pp. 5-11 Pros. Macias: Did you and your companion reach the house of Brigido Colminas? Witness: We did not reach the house of Brigido Colminas, Ma'am. Pros. Macias: What was the reason why you and your companion did not reach the house of Brigido Colminas? Witness: Because Wennie Pespenian and Ireneo Salili waylaid us. Pros. Macias: After that, what happened? Witness: Wennie Pespenian kept on stabbing. Pros. Macias: Who was being stabbed by Wennie Pespenian? Witness: Brigido Colminas. Pros. Macias: What part of the body of Brigido Colminas was stabbed by Wennie Pespenian? Witness: He had many wounds. Court Interpreter: The witness is pointing to his left and right chest down to his foot. Pros. Macias: Did you see how many times Wennie Pespenian stabbed Brigido Colminas? Witness: I saw him [stab] Brigido Colminas but I was not able to count, how many times. Pros. Macias: While Wennie Pespenian stabbed Brigido, where was Ireneo Salili? Witness: He was there following Wennie Pespenian. Pros. Macias: What do you mean when you say that Ireneo Salili was following Wennie Pespenian? Witness: Because they were walking together... (The answer of witness was interrupted by Pros. Macias.) Pros. Macias: My question is: where was Ireneo Salili when Wennie Pespenian kept on stabbing Brigido Colminas? Witness: He was very near him and following him. Pros. Macias: What was the distance of Ireneo Salili when Wennie Pespenian stabbed Brigido Colminas? Witness: One meter distance. Pros. Macias: What was he doing that time? Witness: He was there following Wennie Pespenian because while the victim was being stabbed, he was re-treating. Court to the Witness: What was Ireneo Salili doing when he saw Wennie Pespenian stabbed Brigido Colminas? Witness: He was behind Wennie Pespenian. Court to the Witness: What was he doing? Witness: I did not see him do anything. Pros. Macias: Did you see the weapon used by Wennie Pespenian in stabbing Brigido Colminas? Witness: I saw it. Pros. Macias: What was it? Witness: A knife. Pros. Macias: Can you tell the Honorable Court the length of that knife? Witness: Around 8 inches. Pros. Macias: When Wennie Pespenian was stabbing Brigido, what happened to Brigido? Witness: He fell down. Pros. Macias: How far were you from Wennie Pespenian and Brigido Colminas when the incident happened? Witness: Around 4 meters distance. Pros. Macias: How about your other companion? What was his distance from Brigido? Witness: Around that distance also, x x x x Pros. Macias: How were you able to recognize that it was Wennie Pespenian who stabbed Brigido Colminas? Witness: We had a flashlight that time. Pros. Macias: Since there were two of you who accompanied Brigido Colminas, who among the two of you held the flashlight? Witness: I was the one, Ma'am. Pros. Macias: Aside from a knife, were there any other weapons that you saw being brought by the accused? Witness: We saw Ireneo held a pistol. Pros. Macias: Is the accused Wennie Pespenian and accused Ireneo Salili here today? Witness: Only Wennie Pespenian is here, Ma'am. Cross Examination of Pilota - TSN dated March 18, 2005, pp. 6-8 Atty. Atillo: Such that you cannot easily ascertain the identities of persons you see there unless you are very near the person. Witness: I recognized them because we are bringing a flashlight. Atty. Atillo: Who among the three of you brought flashlight? Witness: Me, Sir. x x x x Atty. Atillo: That flashlight you used in illuminating the place did not clearly illuminate the place because you were behind them. Witness: I directed the light at the sides. Atty. Atillo: Why did you direct the light at the sides not at the front? Witness: Because they were walking [ahead] at the side. Atty. Atillo: Have you met Ireneo Salili prior to January 2, 2003 incident? Witness: Yes Sir, because he is living near our house, x x x x Atty. Atillo: Are you also a friend of Wennie Pespenian, one of the accused in this case? Witness: We know each other, Sir. Unlike Brigido Colminas, we are not so close associates. Direct Examination of Valenzona - TSN dated April 15, 2005, pp. 4-8 Q: Did Brigido Colminas reach his house? A: No, Ma'am. Q: What was the reason, if you know, why Brigido Colminas was not able to reach his house? A: He was waylaid by Wenie Pespenian. Q: Aside form Wenie Pespenian, who else waylaid him? A: Ireneo Salili. x x x x Q: Can you please tell the Honorable Court what actually happened at that time while you were on your way to the house of Brigido Colminas? A: He was waylaid by Wenie Pespenian. Q: You said that Brigido Colminas was waylaid by the accused in this case, will you please tell this Honorable Court how the accused Wenie Pespenian waylaid him? A: He stabbed him many times. Q: Who stabbed him? A: Wenie Pespenian stabbed Brigido Colminas. Q: Can you still remember how many times did Wenie Pespenian stab Brigido Colminas? A: Many times. Q: How about Ireneo Salili, what was his participation? A: He pointed a gun. Q: To whom? A: To Brigido Colminas. xxxx Q: After Brigido Colminas was stabbed by Wenie Pespenian several times, what happened to Brigido Colminas? xxxx A: He fell to the ground, Q: How did you recognize Wenie Pespenian and [Ireneo] Salili at that time? A: Because they were beamed with a flashlight. Q: Are you familiar with them, Wenie Pespenian and Ireneo Salili? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: Is Wenie Pespenian present in this courtroom today? A: Yes, Ma'am. xxxx Q: What about Ireneo Salili, is he present in the courtroom today? A: No, Ma'am, he is not present. Q: Mr. Witness, what was the instrument used by Wenie Pespenian in stabbing Brigido Colminas? A: A knife. Q: Can you still remember the length of that knife? A: More or less, eight (8) inches in length. Q: Can you please tell the Honorable Court what part of the body of Brigido Colminas was hit? A: He was hit on his arm, breast, and leg, but I could not recall if left or right.
The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. It is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely used excessive force that is "out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked." The victim need not be completely defenseless in order for the said aggravating circumstance to be appreciated.The CA had a similar pronouncement.
In the instant case, accused, in perpetrating the crime was armed with a knife and his co-accused Ireneo Salili with a gun, while Brigido Colminas had nothing to defend himself.
As testified by the witness, accused Wennie was stabbing Brigido many times while his co-accused Ireneo Salili was pointing a gun at Brigido. The two (2) accused therefore took advantage that they were both armed in attacking their unarmed and defenseless victim. Such intention is evidenced by the 18 stab and incised wounds combined, which can be found in the different parts of the body of the accused on account of the attack made.[24]
There is abuse of superior strength when the perpetrators of a crime deliberately used excessive force, thereby rendering the victim incapable of defending himself. The notorious inequality of forces creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor.The Court further observes that the prosecution witnesses testified that Pespenian and Salili ran after them after the stabbing incident. This shows that the assailants knew that they had the upper hand because they were armed, and they demonstrated their superiority by going after the unarmed witnesses.
In the case at bench, accused-appellant and his co-accused evidently armed themselves with deadly weapons. Accused-appellant used a knife and with it stabbed Colminas inflicting no less than eighteen (18) wounds upon the latter. Co-accused Salili, for his part, held a gun, which he pointed towards Colminas' direction. On the other hand, Colminas was unarmed. While Colminas had companions at that time, they were similarly unarmed and were overwhelmed by fear of assailants. Accused-appellant and co-accused clearly exploited their superior advantage in number and weapons to ensure the attainment of their hideous plan, i.e., death to Colminas.[25]