Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Francisco Dacillo
People V Francisco Dacillo
DECISION
CORONA , J : p
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Pacot left the house at dawn the following day, February 7, 2000. At past 10:00
a.m., appellant brought the concrete mixture and cast the dead body in cement. After
finishing the job in the afternoon of that day, appellant reported for work at DUCC.
When the body was discovered in the evening of February 11, 2000, appellant
immediately left for Cebu City, arriving there the next day, February 12, 2000. He stayed
in Cebu City until his arrest the following year.
On May 31, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment nding appellant guilty of
murder and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death:
WHEREFORE, this Court nds the accused Francisco Dacillo GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER for the death of Rosemarie
Tallada, as de ned and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. Considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism with no
mitigating circumstance to offset the same, he is hereby sentenced to the extreme
penalty of DEATH,
He is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the
amount of P50,000.00, plus the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the
sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 1 8
Appellant admitted that he had a hand in the killing of Rosemarie but attempted
to downgrade his participation in the crime by claiming he only held Rosemarie’s legs
as Pacot was strangulating her. The rule is that any admission made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof to hold him liable
therefor. Such admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or no such admission was in fact made. There was never any
such disclaimer by appellant.
Moreover, despite appellant’s self-serving, exculpatory statement limiting his
involvement in the crime, all circumstances pointed to his guilt. His declaration faltered
in the face of the testimonies of eyewitnesses positively identifying him as one of the
two men who were with Rosemarie when she was killed. Witness Roche Abregon
pointed to appellant as the one who strangled Rosemarie. He was established to be
inside the house at the time the witnesses heard a woman being battered. Thus,
assuming for the sake of argument that Pacot was the mastermind, appellant’s
admission that he participated in its commission by holding Rosemarie’s legs made
him a principal by direct participation.
Two or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are considered
principals by direct participation if the following requisites are present:
1. they participated in the criminal resolution and
2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by
acts which directly tended to the same end. 2 0
Both requisites were met in this case. Two or more persons are said to have
participated in the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of the
commission of the crime. To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof
of the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime, it being su cient that the
malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. 2 1
The prosecution was able to prove appellant’s participation in the criminal
resolve by his own admission that, right after he was told by Pacot to close the door, he
held down Rosemarie’s legs. He was pinpointed as the one who throttled the victim. He
admitted that they only stopped when they were sure that Rosemarie was already dead.
The two men planned how to dispose of the victim’s body; it was in fact appellant’s
idea to pour concrete on the body, prevailing over Pacot’s suggestion to just dump the
body into the sea. It was appellant himself who encased the body in cement and made
sure that there were no leaks from which foul odor could emanate. He was a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
conspirator in the killing and, whether or not he himself did the strangling or the
stabbing, he was also liable for the acts of the other accused.
It is well-settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another
where, between them, there is conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the
commission of the crime charged. 2 2 Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence
of prior agreement on the commission of the crime as the same can be inferred from
the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime
showing that they acted in unison with each other pursuant to a common purpose or
design. 2 3
We are convinced beyond doubt of the joint and concerted effort between
appellant and the man he identified as Pacot in the killing of Rosemarie.
Appellant likewise contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the presence
of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength quali ed the killing to
murder. He contends that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength
was not speci cally alleged in the information. Nothing can be farther from the truth. A
cursory reading of the information reveals that appellant was su ciently informed of
the charges against him, including the use of superior strength in killing the hapless and
defenseless female victim.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength necessitates a
showing of the relative disparity in the physical characteristics of the aggressor and the
victim such as age, gender, physical size and strength. We agree with the trial court that
the killing of Rosemarie was committed with abuse of superior strength. As found by
the court a quo, two grown-up men against a young fragile woman whose ability to
defend herself had been effectively restrained revealed a shocking inequality of
physical strength. The victim was much weaker in constitution and could not have
possibly defended herself from her stronger assailants. 2 4 Such disparity was manifest
in the contusions in the chest and hands, wounds on the ngers, a stab wound on the
left side of the face and multiple fractures in the ribs of the victim. 2 5 The abuse of
superior strength was obvious in the way Rosemarie was mercilessly beaten to a pulp.
The killing of Rosemarie was thus correctly quali ed to murder by the abuse of
superior strength, a circumstance speci cally pleaded in the information and proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court, however, nds that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty
on the ground that appellant admitted during re-cross examination that he had a prior
conviction for the death of his former live-in partner. The fact that appellant was a
recidivist was appreciated by the trial court as a generic aggravating circumstance
which increased the imposable penalty from reclusion perpetua to death.
In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary
to allege it in the information and to attach certi ed true copies of the sentences
previously meted out to the accused. 2 6 This is in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states:
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the award of exemplary damages is warranted under Art. 2230 of the Civil
Code in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. Imposition of exemplary damages is also justi ed under Art. 2229 of the Civil
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
Code in order to set an example for the public good. 3 2 For this purpose, we believe that
the amount of P25,000 may be appropriately awarded.
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment in Criminal Case No. 45,283-2000 of the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 31, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant Francisco Dacillo y Timtim alias Dodoy is declared guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of murder as de ned and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, appellant is hereby
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of
Rosemarie Tallada the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages,
P25,000 as temperate damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED. SHAcID
Footnotes