B. Peole vs. Numuan
B. Peole vs. Numuan
_______________
** Additional member Per Special Order No. 997 dated June 6, 2011 in lieu of
Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
* THIRD DIVISION.
598
and Anasario with harm should they tell anyone that they
(accused) killed the victim. Under these facts, it does not matter
who actually shot the victim because of the conspiracy that
existed. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all; each of the
accused is equally guilty of the crime committed.
Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; Evident
Premeditation; Elements.—The CA correctly appreciated the
qualifying circumstance of treachery as the victim was shot at the
back. The attack was deliberate, sudden and unexpected; it
afforded the unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or
defend himself. Nonetheless, we find that the CA misappreciated
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
BRION, J.:
We decide the appeal filed by accused Marcelino Ruiz
Nimuan (appellant)1 from the November 23, 2007 Decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02352.2
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
1 Alias “Celine.”
2 Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, and
concurred in by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of
this Court) and Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag of the Special Second
Division of the Court of Appeals; Rollo, pp. 2-25.
3 Alias “Kalbo.”
4 Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Law.
5 Docketed as Criminal Case No. A-5111; original records, p. 92.
6 Original records, p. 99.
7 The accusatory portion of the Amended Information reads:
That on or about the 22nd day of September 2004, in the Municipality
of Aringay, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and
conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding each other and being then
armed with a highpowered firearm, a 12-gauge shotgun, did then and
then (sic) willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot with the said firearm
one DR. JOSE VILLANUEVA, thereby inflicting gun-
600
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
shot wounds on various parts of the latter’s body that were the direct
and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the
heirs of the aforenamed DR. JOSE VILLANUEVA.
That in the commission of the offense, the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation are present as evidenced by the
suddenness of the attack upon the person of the deceased victim which
eliminated any possibility of his defense and that the accused employed
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof specially to ensure its
execution without risk to themselves and that the killing was carefully
planned by the accused.
That the qualifying aggravating circumstance of nighttime is present as
the accused specially sought and took advantage of the darkness of the
night and it facilitated the commission of the crime.
That the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm is
present as the accused used an unlicensed 12-gauge shotgun in shooting
the victim as provided for under Section 1, paragraph 3 of the (sic)
Republic Act No. 8294.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Original records, pp. 103-104).
8 Original records, p. 107.
601
foot. Ten (10) minutes later, Garcia heard two (2) gunshots
coming from the direction of the poultry farm.9
It appears that the victim arrived at his poultry farm at
around 7:00 p.m. to deliver medicines and bread to his
workers, Alvin Manolong, Crispino Yaranon and Ferrer
Anasario. After the delivery, the victim instructed the
workers to resume their work. The workers then proceeded
to Building 1 and left the victim standing beside his truck
near Building 5.10
Subsequently, the workers heard gunfire coming from
the victim’s direction. Manolong went down to investigate.
On hearing a second shot, Manolong ran towards the
parked truck and saw the victim lying on the ground with a
gunshot wound in his stomach. Manolong called his
companions, yelling that the victim had been shot.11
On hearing Manolong’s cries for help, Yaranon and
Anasario ran toward Building 5. On the way, they met the
appellant and Lamberte. The appellant kicked Yaranon
three times and hit him on the stomach with the butt of the
carbine he was holding, while Lamberte poked a shotgun at
Anasario. The appellant and Lamberte threatened Yaranon
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
and Anasario with harm should they tell anyone that they
(the appellant and Lamberte) were responsible for the
killing of the victim. The appellant and Lamberte then left,
going northward in the direction of the mango plantation,
owned by Atty. Paulino Cases, where both worked as
security guards.12
A postmortem examination confirmed that the victim
died from shotgun wounds in the back.13 The victim’s
widow, Dr. Eufemia Villanueva, presented in court the
official receipts, amounting to P56,500.00, for the victim’s
funeral and burial,14
_______________
602
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
The CA Ruling
_______________
603
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
604
From the CA, the case is now with us for final review.
Our Ruling
_______________
The appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Dr. Jose Villanueva the
amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P56,150.00 as actual damages;
P50,000.00 as moral damages; P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
P622,453.95 as indemnification for loss of earning capacity.
605
as the evidence of the crime itself, of (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act
manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his
determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between
determination and execution to allow himself time to
reflect upon the consequences of his act.25
In this case, there is dearth of evidence on when the
accused first conceived of killing the victim and that they
were afforded sufficient time to reflect on the consequences
of their contemplated crime before its final execution.
Moreover, the span of time (less than thirty minutes), from
the time the accused showed their determination to kill the
victim (when they told Garcia that they were “going to kill
the doctor”) up to the time they shot the victim, could not
have afforded them full opportunity for meditation and
reflection on the consequences of the crime they
committed.26 Thus, the circumstance of evident
premeditation cannot be appreciated.
We also find that the CA erred in crediting the appellant
with the mitigating circumstance of intoxication simply
because Garcia testified that “the accused were both
drunk.”27 For intoxication to be considered as a mitigating
circumstance, it must be shown that the intoxication
impaired the willpower of the accused that he did not know
what he was doing or could not comprehend the
wrongfulness of his acts.28
In this case, there is no convincing proof of the nature
and effect of the appellant’s intoxication. The mitigating
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
circum-
_______________
606
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
29 Licyayo v. People, supra. See also People v. Pinca, G.R. No. 129256,
November 17, 1999, 318 SCRA 270; People v. Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May
26, 1999, 307 SCRA 591; and People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 90015, April 10,
1992, 208 SCRA 55, 61-62.
30 Licyayo v. People, supra.
31 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA
738, 752; and People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602, February 4, 2010, 611
SCRA 633, 647.
607
SO ORDERED.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174730b066b81b1e14e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10