Pp vs Hilario

8/11/2019 Pp vs Hilario

1/4

G.R. No. 123455 January 16, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ARNOL HILARIO y IGTING, accused-appellant.

RO!ERO,J.:

Arnold Hilario y Igting, herein accused-appellant, together with three John Does, was charged withmurder in an information that reads:

That on or aout the !"th day of January !##$ in %aloo&an 'ity, (etro (anila and within the)urisdiction of this Honorale 'ourt, the aovenamed accused, conspiring together and mutuallyhelping one another, with delierate intent to &ill, treachery and evident premeditation, did thenand there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maul and sta on the different parts of his odyone Juan *lacer y +oreno, therey inflicting upon the latter serious physical in)uries whichcaused his death.

'ontrary to +aw.1

The identities of the three John Does, having een suseuently estalished, the information was

amended to include the names of eli Almaden, Antonio Igting and /et 0ello. The three, however,still remained at large. Hence, the trial proceeded only as against accused-appellant who pleaded notguilty at his arraignment.

1hermie (aglalang, a niece of the victim testified that at aout !2:22 o3cloc& in the evening of January!", !##$, accused-appellant, Antonio Igting, eli Almaden and /et 0ello were having a drin&ingspree in front of a sari-saristore at 0alta4ar 0u&id, !2th Avenue, %aloo&an 'ity. 5hile the four weredrin&ing, (aglalang3s uncle, victim Juan *lacer and his companion 0ernie Aalos went to thesame sari-saristore to uy cigarettes. 1uddenly and without any provocation at all, Antonio Igting stoodup and struc& the unsuspecting *lacer with a steel chair causing the latter to fall down. 5hen the latterwas already lying prone on the ground, accused-appellant, /et 0ello and eli Almaden ganged up onhim, hitting their victim repeatedly with chairs on different parts of his ody. 6ot content with merelyusing chairs, Antonio Igting and eli Almaden pulled out their balisongand staed the victim.Thereafter, Antonio Igting, /et 0ello and eli Almaden scampered away from the crime scene.Accused-appellant remained and continued ashing the head of the victim with a steel chair.

(aglalang, accompanied y her oyfriend 7now her husand8 (arwin Aclaw, found themselves helplessin the face of the onslaught. irst, they were outnumered y the aggressors, two as against four.1econd, they were unarmed. Third, Antonio Igting and eli Almaden warned them against intervening.To manifest their intention, Igting and Almaden even randished their balisongat them.

The victim was immediately rought to Dr. Jose 9eyes (emorial Hospital ut he epired at :22 o3cloc&in the morning of January !#, !##$. (aglalang positively identified accused-appellant in open court.

(arwin Aclaw testified that at the time of the incident, Juan *lacer and his companions 0ernie Aalos,were drin&ing in front of the sari-sari store. The four accused were li&ewise having a drin&ing spree in

front of the same store. /ne of accused-appellant3s companions offered 0ernie Aalos a drin& whichthe latter refused. eeling slighted, accused Antonio Igting hit Aalos on the head with a glass. 5henAalos fled, the four accused vented their ire on *lacer. Antonio Igting grasped the victim3s nec& andpunched him on his face. 5hen *lacer attempted to run away, accused-appellant ran after him and&ic&ed him from ehind. Then eli Almaden pulled of his balisongand repeatedly staed the victimon different parts of his ody. Thereafter, the assailants, with the eception of accused-appellant, fledfrom the scene of the crime. Accused-appellant remained, graed a chair with steel legs and hit *lacerseveral times on the head.

5hen accused-appellant was rought to the hospital where the victim was confined, the victimidentified him as one of the culprits.

/n cross-eamination, Aclaw further testified that while eli Almaden as staing the victim, the latterwas eing held y /et 0ello, while accused-appellant and Antonio Igting stood guard around thevictim.

Accused-appellant denied any participation in the crime; instead, he averred that it was eli Almadenwho should e held answerale for the death of Juan *lacer.


2/4

The trial court was not convinced y accused-appellant3s denials. Thus, on /ctoer !!, !## the9egional Trial 'ourt-0r. !$# of %aloo&an 'ity found him guilty of the crime charged and accordinglysentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of fourteen 7!

?pon the evidence, the conscience of this 'ourt would never e at rest if it asolves accusedArnold Hilario from his proven liaility for the death of Juan *lacer.

'oncededly, Arnold Hilario was not the accused who repeatedly plunged the deadly lade of the@$# alisong@ into the vital parts of the victim3s ody. Admittedly, too, there is no showing thatArnold Hilario was the one who started the one-sided acts of aggression against the victimwhose misfortune was to engage in what turned out to e his last drin&ing spree with < menwhose inclination was to destroy and to &ill when ineriated. ven so, Arnold Hilario3s hand isclearly stained with the victim3s lood. He appears to have acted in concert with his co-accusedin &ic&ing the victim first, and in suseuently hitting him with a chair until eli Almaden finallydealt the coup de gracein the form of repeated stas on the victim3s ody. As if Arnold Hilariowanted more lood from the fallen victim who was already mortally wounded, he still repeatedlystruc& and hit him on the head with a chair, even after his 7Arnold3s8 co-accused had already

fled from the scene, therey adding the element of cruelty to the victim3s condition of pain andhelplessness.

The concerted attac& was so unepectedly sudden that the victim had no semlance ofdefense. This utterly uneual footing in the mode of eecution of the attac& is pure andsimple alevosia. The crime charged is well-ta&en. The < accused did not simply &ill the victim.They murdered him.2

/n appeal, accused-appellant insisted that he did not perform any of the acts imputed to him, ut theappellate court was not persuaded. It affirmed the findings of the court a quo. However, it modified thepenalty to reclusion perpetua. Hence, pursuant to 1ec. !, par. 7$8, 9ule !$< of the 9ules of 'ourt, thecase was certified to this 'ourt for review.

0oth the lower court and the appellate court found that accused-appellant clearly and activelyparticipated in causing the death of Juan *lacer. Accused-appellant3s alleged participation consisted in&ic&ing the uttoc&s of the victim, hitting the victim3s ody and ashing the head with a steel chair. Thetwo prosecution eyewitness, (aglalang and Aclaw, sustantially testified to this effect.

These assertions were, however, refuted y the medical findings of Dr. (aimo 9eyes who testified thatthe victim suffered no contusion, arasion, laceration or hematoma. The autopsy report preciselyindicated sta wounds as cause of death. His postmortem findings are the following:

(ar&ed pallor, generali4ed.

Hemothora, #22 c.c. right, consisting of fluid and clotted lood. 1urgical incision, suture, $B.2cm. running oliuely, right side of chest.

STAB WOUNDS:

!. lliptical, gaping, .2 cm. with clean cut edges and one etremity sharp, other is contused,located over the sternal area, level of =th ri, non-penetrating.

$. Three 78 in numer, all with clean cut edges and with one etremity sharp, other in contused,varying in si4e, upper is $.= cm. and level of rd intercostal space; middle is !.2 cm. level of


3/4

iscal Inciong:

Have you seen other in)uries that were inflicted on the ody of the deceasedE

A 5ell, nothing more ecept the staed 7sic8 wounds.

Are there contusionsE

A There was none.

4

In his cross-eamination, Dr. 9eyes further testified:

Atty. /ngtengco:

6ow, in your diagrammatic illustration of the cadaver of the decedent, youhave een indicating only sta wounds sustained y the decedent. 5ere thereno other in)uries aside from these sta woundsE

A There was none, sir.

Have there een any contusions, lacerationE It would not have escaped your

&een oservationE

A 6o, sir. All the in)uries that I noted should e on this particular reports evenarasions.

There was no sign that the decedent was ever or the decedent ever receivedany lows y a lunt instrumentE

A There was none, sir.

5

This 'ourt is more inclined to elieve the testimony of Dr. (aimo 9eyes who is an impartial anddisinterested witness. His medical findings elied the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. If it weretrue that accused-appellant hit that victim with a steel chair, not only once ut several times, then in all

proaility, the victim3s ody would have orne witness to such an attac&. Interestingly however, nosuch indications were found. If indeed accused-appellant hit the victim3s head with a steel chair anumer of times, then surely, there would have een wounds in that area, ut none were found. Allthese lead to the conclusion that accused-appellant did not hit the victim with a steel chair on differentparts of his ody, including the head. The defense successfully cast dout on the crediility of thetestimonies of prosecution witnesses (aglalang and Aclaw on this particular aspect.

However, even without the autopsy report elying the testimonies of (aglalang and Aclaw, thecrediility of 1hermie (aglalang as a prosecution witness is already suspect. (aglalang, inher Sinumpaang Salaysay,6stated that it was only eli Almaden who staed her uncle Juan *lacer, utin her direct testimony, she alleged that Antonio Igting and eli Almaden staed her uncle. Antonio Igtingallegedly staed the victim on the side and the ac& while eli Almaden allegedly staed the victim nearhis heart, his side, left arm and his ac&. (aglalang allegedly saw Igting staing her uncle through themovements of his hands while claiming that the other accused surrounded the victim to @cover@ him. "

The allegation that (aglalang &eenly oserved all the hand movements of Antonio Igting and sawwhere the fatal thrusts specifically landed is not credile. As stated earlier, these testimonies were notorne out y the testimonial evidence of the medico-legal officer and the autopsy report. Hence, this'ourt cannot give due weight to the aove testimonies.

The only way accused-appellant could e held liale for the death of the victim Juan *lacer is throughthe finding of the eistence of conspiracy. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to anagreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 'onspiracy, to eist, doesnot reuire an agreement for an appreciale period prior to the occurrence; it eists if, at the time of thecommission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its eecution. Directproof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may e deduced from the mode and

the manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from acts of the accused themselveswhen such point to a )oint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.8

5ith the finding that the victim did not suffer any in)ury other than those sta wounds, this 'ourt is


4/4

constrained to rule that accused-appellant3sparticipationin the commission of the crime was his merepresence in the crime scene, ut mere presence of the accused at the scene of the crime does notimply conspiracy.9

The only way y which appellant may e held culpale is proof eyond reasonale dout that he was aconspirator, ut conspiracy, li&e the crime itself, must e proven eyond reasonale dout. Thepresence of the element of conspiracy among the accused can e proven y their conduct efore,during and after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other,evincing a common purpose or design. In other words, the accused must participate, even y a singleovert act, in the perpetration of the crime. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all of themacted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design to &ill the victim. vidence ofintentional participation is imperative. /ne3s mere presence in the crime scene, y itself, does not ma&ehim a conspirator.1#

It is hornoo& &nowledge that flight from the locus criminisis a strong indication of a guiltymind.11?nli&e his co-accused, accused-appellant did not flee from the crime scene. He even proceeded toclean the tales, arrange the chairs and wash the utensils used during the drin&ing spree. The 'ourt finds hisnon-flight indicative of innocence.

Aclaw testified that when accused-appellant was rought to the hospital where the victim was confined,he was identified y the latter as one of his assailants. The prosecution insists that this 'ourt accord

weight to said testimony and treat it as a dying declaration.

The circumstances that should e ta&en into consideration in determining the weight to e given todying declarations are:

7a8 The trustworthiness of the reporters;

78 The capacity of the declarant at the time to accurately rememer the past;

7c8 His disposition to tell what he rememers; and

7d8 1uch circumstances as may e attendant such as the fact that the declarations were the result ofuestions propounded y an attorney, the presence only of friends and prosecuting officers, the lac& ofelief of the declarant in a future life, rewards and punishment, the fact that the statements in the dyingdeclarations are contrary to facts satisfactorily proven y other evidence, and the fact that the

declaration might have een influenced y the passion of anger and vengeance, or )ealousy.12

5hen the dying declaration was made y Juan *lacer pointing to Arnold Igting as one of his assailants,only prosecution witnesses (arwin Aclaw, married to the niece of the victim 1hermie (aglalang, JuliaJoregue, sister of the victim and */ Fivencio Gamoa, the investigating officer of the case, werepresent. /f the three present, only Aclaw and Joregue testified as to the alleged dying declaration madey Juan *lacer.

As pointed out earlier, the evidence, as well as the autopsy report, cast dout on (arwin Aclaw3scrediility. /n the other hand, Julia Joregue, eing the sister of the victim, may e epected to e partialto her rother. Interestingly, */ Gamoa did not corroorate the testimony of Aclaw and Joregue. Inany case, the so-called dying declaration is contrary to facts proven y the evidence presented y thedefense, particularly the autopsy report. Hence, this 'ourt cannot accord weight to it.

The 'onstitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall e presumed innocent untilthe contrary is proved. It is thus aiomatic that an accused under our law is entitled to an acuittalunless his guilt is proved eyond reasonale dout. In fact, unless the prosecution discharges theurden of proving the guilt of the accused eyond reasonale dout, the latter need not even offerevidence in his ehalf.13

5H9/9, the decision of the 'ourt of Appeals dated January $, !## affirming the decision ofthe 9egional Trial 'ourt-0ranch !$# of %aloo&an 'ity convicting accused-appellant of murder is9F91D and 1T A1ID. Accused-appellant Arnold Hilario y Igting is A'?ITTD and ordered9+A1D from confinement unless he is eing held for some other legal grounds. 6o costs.

1/ /9D9D.

Documents

Pp vs Hilario