People vs. Lacao, Et Al., 201 SCRA 317, September 4, 1991
People vs. Lacao, Et Al., 201 SCRA 317, September 4, 1991
1 of 16
with their knives. In their defense, Patria and Trinidad sought
refuge in the impuissant sanctuary of alibi. Trite as it is, we have
to impress on appellants once again the
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
318
2 of 16
Same; Same; Trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s
identification of the appellants as the culprits.—Moreover, the
trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s identification of the
appellants as the culprits. Subject to exceptions which do not
obtain in this case, the trial court is in a better position to decide
this question, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during
the trial.
Same; Same; Conspiracy; The same degree of proof required to
establish the crime is required to support a finding of conspiracy
that is
319
3 of 16
with the holding of the court below since this was sufficiently
proven by the evidence. It is elementary hornbook knowledge that
there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Treachery was thus correctly
appreciated against all appellants, the use of superior strength
being absorbed as an integral part of the treacherous mode of
commission.—In the present case, the deceased was stabbed
without warning the moment he unsuspectingly released the
hand of Baltazar Lacao II. So sudden and unanticipated was the
attack that the victim was given no chance to defend himself.
Then herein appellants, although apparently acting
320
4 of 16
indispensable to the commission of the offense, bore a relation to
the acts done by the principal and supplied material or moral aid
in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way. Since they
were aware of the criminal intent of the principals and having
participated in such murderous criminal design sans a conspiracy,
we hold them guilty of the milder form of responsibility as
accomplices.
REGALADO, J.:
5 of 16
previously convicted by final judgment of the crime of homicide.
1
“CONTRARY TO LAW."
________________
322
6 of 16
surrounded the victim.
The men then stabbed Cpl. Inocencio several times
while the women hit him with stools. As the attack
continued, the victim was pushed toward the door of the
kitchen and he later slumped on the floor facing downward.
Baltazar Lacao, Sr. then sat astride him and continued
stabbing the latter as he was thus lying prostrate.
Thereafter, this appellant asked: “Nyor, Nyor, are you still
alive?” Appellant Patria Lacao interjected: “What are you
waiting for, it is already finished, we have to go.” Baltazar
Lacao III then got 2the gun of Cpl. Inocencio and all the
accused went away.
All the foregoing facts were clearly and categorically
established by said prosecution witness. unshaken and
unaffected by the gruelling cross-examination to which she
was subjected. In the process she categorically identified
the three appellants
________________
2 TSN, October 21,1986, 3–11; June 16, 1987, 3; July 14, 1987, 18–22;
August 17, 1987, 23–25.
323
1. Rigor mortis—present.
2. Livor mortis—present.
3. Lacerated wound about 1" dia. located at the left frontopa
reital region of the head, superficial.
4. Stab wound, about 3/4" dia. located at the level of 31CS
MCL, left, going postero-inferiorly reaching the anterior
7 of 16
pericardium.
5. Stab wound, about 3/4" dia. located at the level of 31CS 1"
lateral to MCL right, going postero-inferiorly reaching the
right lung tissue.
6. Stab wound, about 2–1/2" horizontally located at the
subcostal area, MCL right, going postero-superiorly
hitting the liver.
7. Stab wound 1" dia. located at the level of 51CS AAL, right,
going medio-superiorly reaching the right Iung.
8. Stab wound, about 2" dia. located at the level of the 10ICS
AAL right, going media-superiorly reaching the right
lung.
9. Incised wound, about 1/2" dia. superficially located at the
superior portion of the posterior elbow.
10. Stab wound, about 1/2" dia. located at the base of the
neck, left going medio-inferiorly reaching the body of the
cervical vertebra.
11. Stab wound, about 1" dia. diag. located at the supra-
scapular region, left going antero-inferiorly reaching the
left lung.
12. Two stab wounds superimposed to one another located at
the scapular region, left, superficial, reaching the scapula.
________________
324
8 of 16
the three appellants of the crime charged, imposing on
them the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering them
to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of
P30,000.00 for his death, P9,250.00 as actual damages,
plus P100,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary 6
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
In their present recourse, appellants assign the
following errors:
________________
325
II
III
IV
9 of 16
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING
APPELLANTS PATRIA LACAO AND TRINIDAD MANSILLA
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER WITH DIRECT ASSAULT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT PERFORMED OVERT
ACT SHOWING CONSPIRACY FOR MERE KNOWLEDGE,
ACQUIESCENCE OR APPROVAL OF THE ACT, WITHOUT
COOPERATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE ONE A
PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY, AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT APPELLANTS TRINIDAD
MANSILLA AND PATRIA LACAO NOT HAVING CONSPIRED
WITH BALTAZAR LACAO, SR. IN KILLING THE VICTIM
JOSE INOCENCIO, JR. TREACHERY CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED AGAINST THEM.
________________
7 Rollo, 61–62.
326
attempted to shoot him but the gun did not fire. Said
appellant allegedly grabbed the8 gun and stabbed the
deceased more than five (5) times.
The other appellants, Trinidad Mansilla and Patria
Lacao, interposed the defense of alibi. Their version is that
at 7:30 in the evening of September 28, 1985, they and one
Consolacion Lago went to the wake at Barangay Manibad.
They prayed and, at about 9:30 9A.M., they went home but
Baltazar, Sr. was left behind. Baltazar Lacao II was
alleged to be sleeping in their house and Baltazar Lacao III
was said to be then10
in Roxas City studying at the La
Purisima College.
The Court finds the appeal to be devoid of merit.
Appellant Baltazar Lacao, Sr., by pleading self-defense
10 of 16
necessarily admits that he killed the victim and he is thus
dutybound to prove the 11
essential requisites for this
justifying circumstance. This circumstance
12
he has to
prove by clear and convincing evidence, the onus probandi
having shifted to him.
Now, this appellant admitted stabbing the victim more
than five (5) times. As seen from the medico-legal report,
the victim actually suffered fifteen (15) stab wounds, that
the cause13
of death was hemorrhage and multiple stab
wounds, and that most of the injuries inflicted were
indeed fatal. It cannot now be denied that, even indulging
said appellant in his theory, he definitely exceeded the
limits of what is necessary to suppress an alleged unlawful
aggression directed to him by the victim. In fact, from the
eyewitness accounts, he even continued stabbing the victim
who was already slumped prone and helpless.
Said appellant also sought to buttress his defense by
claiming that Cpl. Inocencio, prior to the stabbing, fired his
gun at the former but the gun did not fire. This subterfuge
is refuted by the unequivocal statements of the prosecution
witnesses that the
________________
327
11 of 16
any sign or mark that the gun was ever fired. Had the gun
been fired, the base of at least one bullet would have been
impressed in the center by the corresponding indentation
caused by the impact thereon by the firing pin of the
revolver when the trigger is pulled. The absence of such
physical evidence further sustains the holding of the trial
court that even the first element of selfdefense has not
been proved despite said appellant’s protestations.
Appellants Patria Lacao and Trinidad Mansilla were
positively identified by all the prosecution witnesses as the
ones who hit the victim with stools several times while the
other three (3) male accused were stabbing the victim with
their knives. In their defense, Patria and Trinidad sought
refuge in the impuissant sanctuary of alibi. Trite as it is,
we have to impress on appellants once again the doctrine
that alibi is the weakest defense an accused can concoct. In
order to prosper, it must be so convincing as to preclude
any doubt that the accused could not have been physically
present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time
of the commission. In the face of positive identification of
the accused
17
by eyewitnesses, an alibi crumbles like a sand
fortress.
The trial court definitely held that appellants “Patria
Lacao
________________
328
12 of 16
because the place where the crime occurred was
sufficiently lighted. Where considerations of visibility are
favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased
against the accused, their assertions as to the identity of
the malefactor should be normally accepted. This is more
so when the witness is the victim or his near relative
because these witnesses usually strive to remember the
faces of the assailants. Moreover, the trial court gave
credence to the prosecution’s identification of the
appellants as the culprits. Subject to exceptions which do
not obtain in this case, the trial court is in a better position
to decide this question, having seen and heard the
witnesses themselves and observed 19their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.
The Court, however, is not favorably impressed with the
prosecution’s theory that the assailants acted pursuant to a
conspiracy just because they apparently acted in unison in
attacking the victim. True, conspiracy is always
predominantly mental in composition because it consists
primarily of the meeting of minds and, generally,
complicity may be inferred from circumstantial evidence,
i.e., the community of purpose and the unity of design in
the contemporaneous or simultaneous
20
performance of the
act of assaulting the deceased. However,
________________
18 Rollo, 52; See People vs. Bermoy, 105 SCRA 106 (1981).
19 People vs. Berenguel, et al., G.R. Nos. Nos. 63753–54, December 21,
1990.
20 People vs. Guevarra, 179 SCRA 325 (1989).
329
conspiracy must
21
be proved with as much certainty as the
crime itself. The same degree of proof required to
establish the
22
crime is required to support a finding
23
of
conspiracy, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
At the very least, conspiracy presupposes a prior
agreement or contemporaneous understanding on the part
of the conspirators to commit a felony, in this case, to kill
Cpl. Inocencio. A dispassionate appraisal of the facts
readily reveals, however, that the attack on the victim
originated spontaneously from and was initiated
unexpectedly by Baltazar Lacao II. Appellant Baltazar
Lacao, Sr. and his other son, Baltazar Lacao III,
immediately joined in the fray by attacking the victim with
13 of 16
their knives, whereupon the two female appellants, also
assisted their menfolk by hitting the victim with stools.
The rapidity in the succession of such consecutive acts of
the assailants, with the last four coming instinctively, as it
were, to the aid of the original assailant, cannot but
produce the conclusion that their actuations were activated
without prior or apparent deliberation. It does not even
appear that there was a call or a signal from one to the
other to join the attack on Cpl. Inocencio, much less is
there even an intimation that they had such a murderous
intent or cabal at any time prior thereto. The spontaneity
of their respective reactions, albeit resulting in an attack
where they all participated, rules out the existence of a
conspiracy.
As a consequence, therefore, the respective liabilities of
appellants shall be determined by the nature 24of their
individual participations in the felonious act. It is
understood, however, that whatever liabilities may attach
to Baltazar Lacao II and Baltazar Lacao III are not
concluded by the dispositions herein nor shall they be
bound by the discussions in this opinion on their putative
participations in the crime charged.
________________
330
14 of 16
attack that the victim was given no chance to defend
himself. Then herein appellants, although apparently
acting without prior agreement, also instantly and all
together attacked him. Even if their aforesaid acts were
independently performed on their individual initiatives,
such concerted action ensured the commission of the crime
without risk to them arising from any defense or
retaliation that the victim might have resorted to.
Treachery was thus correctly appreciated against all
appellants, the use of superior strength being absorbed as
an integral part of the treacherous mode of commission.
Appellant Baltazar Lacao, Sr. admitted during the trial
that he was once convicted of the crime of26 homicide but he
was granted an absolute pardon therefor. The lower court
properly considered recidivism since a pardon for a
preceding offense does not obliterate the fact that the
accused is a recidivist upon his conviction of a 27second
offense embraced in the same title of the Code. This
aggravating circumstance of recidivism accordingly offsets
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender by
Baltazar Lacao, Sr.
With respect to appellants Patria Lacao and Trinidad
Lacao Mansilla, they did cooperate in the execution of the
offense by simultaneous acts which, although not
indispensable to the commission of the offense, bore a
relation to the acts done by the
________________
25 Art. 14(16), Revised Penal Code; People vs. Melgar, et al., 157 SCRA
718 (1988).
26 TSN, December 19,1989,6.
27 U.S. vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 149 (1914).
331
15 of 16
correctly sentenced appellant Baltazar Lacao, Sr. to suffer
reclusion perpetua. Appellants Patria Lacao and Trinidad
Lacao Mansilla are hereby sentenced to serve an
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The death
indemnity is hereby increased to P50,000.00 in accordance
with the present policy on the matter, with appellant
Baltazar Lacao, Sr. primarily liable for P40,000.00 and
appellants Patria Lacao and Trinidad Lacao Mansilla for
P10,000.00, subject to the provisions of Article 110 of the
Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing modifications, the
judgment of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
________________
332
16 of 16