Case Digest: People vs. Rebucan, GR 182551, July 27, 2011

            Murder | Criminal Law

Facts:

The accused-appellant, Rosendo Rebucan, testified that he arrived in Carigara, Leyte from Manila on August 15, 2002, and learned that his wife had gone to Manila and his brother was taking care of their children. On November 2, 2002, he learned from his stepson, Raymond, that Felipe and Timboy had sexually molested his wife. On November 6, 2002, he went to the house of the barangay chairperson to call his wife and confirm the incident, and on his way home, he sought shelter at the house of his friend Enok and was offered a drink of gin.

Carmela Tagpis testified as an eyewitness to the incident in question. She affirmed that accused-appellant came inside the house in a sudden manner. She insisted that Ranil was indeed carried by Felipe when the accused-appellant entered the house. She said that no fight or altercation occurred between Felipe and the accused-appellant. After Felipe was hacked, he immediately ran outside of the house but thereafter fell to the ground.

The accused-appellant then surrendered to the barangay chairperson.

Appellate Court: Guilty of double murder.

Issues:

I. WoN the court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.

II. WoN the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of a grave offense, voluntary surrender and intoxication be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant.

III. WoN the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, abuse of superior strength and minority be appreciated.

Held:

Guilty of two (2) separate counts of murder.

Qualifying Circumstance: Treachery

Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender

Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua for each count

I.  In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution established the fact that the killings of Felipe and Ranil were attended by treachery, thus qualifying the same to murder.

Without any provocation, the accused-appellant suddenly delivered fatal hacking blows to Felipe. The abruptness of the unexpected assault rendered Felipe defenseless and deprived him of any opportunity to repel the attack and retaliate. As Felipe was carrying his grandson Ranil, the child unfortunately suffered the same fatal end as that of his grandfather. In the killing of Ranil, the trial court likewise correctly appreciated the existence of treachery. The said circumstance may be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or become aware of it. Furthermore, the killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of assault is not shown. For the weakness of the victim due to his tender years results in the absence of any danger to the accused.

With regard to the conflicting rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals vis-à-vis the nature of crimes committed, we agree with the appellate court that the accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of murder, not the complex crime of double murder. The evidence of the prosecution failed to clearly and indubitably establish the fact that Felipe and Ranil were killed by a single fatal hacking blow from the accused-appellant. To a greater degree, it was neither proven that the murder of Felipe was committed as a necessary means for committing and/or facilitating the murder of Ranil and vice versa. The accused-appellant should be made liable for two separate and distinct acts of murder. In the past, when two crimes have been improperly designated as a complex crime, this Court has affirmed the conviction of the accused for the component crimes separately instead of the complex crime.

II. We uphold the trial court’s ruling that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated. The accused-appellant has duly established in this case that, after the attack on Felipe and Ranil, he surrendered unconditionally to the barangay chairperson and to the police on his own volition and before he was actually arrested. The prosecution also admitted this circumstance of voluntary surrender during trial.

We reject, however, the accused-appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of intoxication and immediate vindication of a grave offense.

The Court finds that the accused-appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication since his own testimony failed to substantiate his claim of drunkenness during the incident in question. During his cross-examination, the accused-appellant himself positively stated that he was only a bit tipsy but not drunk when he proceeded to the house of Felipe. He cannot, therefore, be allowed to make a contrary assertion on appeal and pray for the mitigation of the crimes he committed on the basis thereof.

In the case at bar, the accused-appellant points to the alleged attempt of Felipe and Timboy Lagera on the virtue of his wife as the grave offense for which he sought immediate vindication. He testified that he learned of the same from his stepson, Raymond, on November 2, 2002. Four days thereafter, on November 6, 2002, the accused-appellant carried out the attack that led to the deaths of Felipe and Ranil. To our mind, a period of four days was sufficient enough a time within which the accused-appellant could have regained his composure and self-control. Thus, the said mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be credited in favor of the accused-appellant.

III. The Court finds erroneous, the trial court’s and the Court of Appeals’ appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

In the case at bar, the evidence of the prosecution failed to establish any of the elements of evident premeditation since the testimonies they presented pertained to the period of the actual commission of the crime and the events that occurred thereafter. The prosecution failed to adduce any evidence that tended to establish the exact moment when the accused-appellant devised a plan to kill Felipe, that the latter clung to his determination to carry out the plan and that a sufficient time had lapsed before he carried out his plan.

The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, dwelling, minority and intoxication. When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. 

On the other hand, dwelling, minority and intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the instant case considering that the same were not alleged and/or specified in the information that was filed on January 23, 2003. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a generic aggravating circumstance will not be appreciated by the Court unless alleged in the information. 

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

Art. 248. Murder. – Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5.  With evident premeditation.

6.  With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are:

(1) that a person was killed;

(2) that the accused killed him or her;

(3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and

(4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide

✅#1 -– Treachery

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, offering an unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. There is treachery even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, with the victims having no opportunity to repel it or defend themselves, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate.

❌Aggravating Circumstance: Evident Premeditation

For evident premeditation to aggravate a crime, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements:

(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;

(2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and

(3) sufficient lapse of time, between determination and execution, to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

It is not enough that evident premeditation is suspected or surmised, but criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation"; it must be "evident premeditation."

✅Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender

For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the following elements must concur: 

(1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 

(2) the offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent; and 

(3) the surrender is voluntary.

To be sufficient, the surrender must be spontaneous and made in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally, either because they acknowledge their guilt or wish to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that will necessarily be incurred in searching for and capturing them.

❌Mitigating Circumstance: Intoxication

Intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 

❌Mitigating Circumstance: Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense

It requires that the act be "committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees." The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity.

Recit Version:

Facts:

On November 2, 2002, the accused-appellant, Rosendo Rebucan, learned from his stepson that his wife was sexually molested by Felipe and Timboy. 

Four days later, he went to the barangay chairperson's house to call his wife.  On his way home, he sought shelter at the house of his friend Enok and was offered a drink of gin.

An eyewitness, Carmela Tagpis, testified that during the incident the accused-appellant suddenly entered the house without any altercation  and hacked Felipe, who was then holding a child, Ramil. 

The accused-appellant surrendered to the barangay chairperson.

Appellate Court: Guilty of double murder.

Issues:

I. WoN the court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.

II. WoN the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of a grave offense, voluntary surrender and intoxication be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant.

III. WoN the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, abuse of superior strength and minority be appreciated.

Held:

Guilty of two (2) separate counts of murder.

Qualifying Circumstance: Treachery

Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender

Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua for each count

I.  The evidence of the prosecution established the fact that the killings of Felipe and Ranil were attended by treachery, thus qualifying the same to murder.

The accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of murder, not the complex crime of double murder. The evidence of the prosecution failed to clearly and indubitably establish the fact that Felipe and Ranil were killed by a single fatal hacking blow from the accused-appellant. To a greater degree, it was neither proven that the murder of Felipe was committed as a necessary means for committing and/or facilitating the murder of Ranil and vice versa. 

II. The accused-appellant has duly established in this case that, after the attack on Felipe and Ranil, he surrendered unconditionally to the barangay chairperson and to the police on his own volition and before he was actually arrested. The prosecution also admitted this circumstance of voluntary surrender during trial.

The Court finds that the accused-appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication since his own testimony failed to substantiate his claim of drunkenness during the incident in question. 

A period of four days was sufficient enough a time within which the accused-appellant could have regained his composure and self-control. Thus, the said mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be credited in favor of the accused-appellant.

III. The evidence of the prosecution failed to establish any of the elements of evident premeditation since the testimonies they presented pertained to the period of the actual commission of the crime and the events that occurred thereafter. 

When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. 

On the other hand, dwelling, minority and intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the instant case considering that the same were not alleged and/or specified in the information that was filed.