G.R. No. 75369.

November 26, 1990

269 Phil. 666

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO ILIGAN Y

JAMITO, EDMUNDO ASIS Y ILIGAN AND JUAN MACANDOG (AT LARGE),
DEFENDANTS, FERNANDO ILIGAN Y JAMITO AND EDMUNDO ASIS Y ILIGAN,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

DECISION

FERNAN, C.J.:

In
this appeal, uncle and nepnew, Fernando Iligan and Edmundo Asis, seek a
reversal of the decision of the then Court of First Instance
of Camarines Norte, Branch II [1]

convicting them of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the
heirs of Esmeraldo Quiñones,
Jr. in the amounts of P30,000 for the latter’s death and P256,960 representing
the victim’s unrealized income.

On October 21, 1980, the following information for murder was

filed against Fernando Iligan, Edmundo
Asis and Juan Macandog:

“That on or about 3:00 a.m., August 4, 1980, at sitio Lico II, barangay Sto.
Domingo,
municipality of Vinzons, province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of the Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and mutually

© 2024 - batas.org | 1
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, one of the
accused Fernando Iligan armed with a bolo (sinampalok) and with deliberate
intent to kill, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, gang
up and in a sudden unexpected manner, hacked Esmeraldo
Quiñones, Jr., on his face, thus causing fatal
injuries on the latter’s face which resulted to (sic) the death of said Emeraldo
Quiñones.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Juan Macandog was never apprehended and

he remains at large. At their
arraignment on January 12, 1981 Fernando Iligan and Edmundo Asis pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged.
Thereafter, the prosecution presented the following version of the
commission of the crime:

At around 2:00 o’clock

in the morning of August 4, 1980,
Esmeraldo Quiñones, Jr. and
his companions, Zaldy Asis
and Felix Lukban, were walking home from barangay Sto. Domingo, Vinzons, Camarines
Norte after
attending a barrio fiesta dance. In
front of the ricemill
of a certain Almadrones, they met the accused
Fernando Iligan, his nephew, Edmundo
Asis, and Juan Macandog. Edmundo Asis pushed (“winahi“)
them aside thereby prompting Zaldy Asis to box him. [2]

Felix Lukban quickly told the group of the accused

that they had no desire to fight. [3]

Fernando Iligan, upon seeing his nephew fall, drew

from his back a bolo and hacked Zaldy Asis but missed.
Terrified, the trio ran pursued by the three accused. They ran for about half an hour,

© 2024 - batas.org | 2
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

passing by
the house of Quiñones, Jr. They
stopped running only upon seeing that they were no longer being chased. After resting for
a short while, Quiñones,
Jr. invited the two to accompany him to his house so that he could change to
his working clothes and report for work as a bus conductor. [4]

While the trio were walking towards the house of Quiñones, Jr., the three accused suddenly
emerged on the
roadside and without a word, Fernando Iligan hacked Quiñones, Jr. with his bolo hitting him
on the forehead and
causing him to fall down. [5]

Horrified, Felix Lukban and Zaldy

Asis fled to a distance of 200 meters, but returned
walking after they heard shouts of people. Zaldy Asis specifically heard someone shout “May
nadale na.” [6]

On the spot where Quiñones, Jr. was

hacked, Zaldy Asis and
Felix Lukban saw him already dead with his head
busted.[7]

They helped the brother of Quiñones, Jr. in carrying

him to their house.[8]

That same day, August 4,

1980, the body of Quiñones, Jr. was
autopsied at the Funeraria Belmonte
in Labo, Camarines Norte by
the municipal health officer, Dr. Marcelito E. Abas. The postmortem
examination report which is found at the back of the death certificate reveals
that Esmeraldo Quiñones,
Jr., who was 21 years old when he died, sustained the following injuries:

“1. Shock and

massive cerebral hemorrhages due to multiple fracture of the entire half of the
frontal left, temporal, parietal and occipital bone of the head, with massive

© 2024 - batas.org | 3
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

maceration of the brain tissue.

“2. Other
findings – Incised wound at the right eyebrow, medial aspect measuring about 4
cms. in length, 0.5 cm. in width and 0.5 cm. in depth, abrasion
on the left shoulder and right side of the
neck.”[9]

The death certificate also indicates that

Quiñones, Jr. died of “shock and massive cerebral hemorrhages due to a
vehicular accident.”

The defendants denied having perpetrated the crime. They alleged that they were in their
respective houses at the time the crime was committed.

Accused Fernando Iligan testified that

at around midnight of August 4,
1980, he left his house to fetch his visitors at the dance
hall.
[10]

Along the way, he met his nephew, Edmundo Asis, whom he presumed was drunk. He
invited his nephew to accompany him to the
dance hall. However, they were not able
to reach their destination because Edmundo was boxed
by somebody whom he (Edmundo) sideswiped. [11]

Instead, Fernando Iligan brought his nephew home. [12]

On their way, they were overtaken by Juliano Mendoza

whom Fernando Iligan invited to his house to help him
cook. [13]

After bringing his nephew home, Fernando Iligan and Juliano Mendoza proceeded to Iligan’s
house and arrived there between 1:30
and 2:00 o’clock in the morning of
the same day. [14]

© 2024 - batas.org | 4
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

Edmundo Asis
corroborated Iligan’s testimony. He testified that while they were walking in
front of the Almadrones ricemill,
he sideswiped someone whom he did not recognize because there were several
persons around. He said, “Sorry,
pare” but the person to whom he addressed his apology boxed him on his
left face. He fell down and Iligan helped him.
Later, Iligan accompanied him to his home in Lico II. [15]

After Iligan and Juliano

Mendoza had left his house, he slept and woke up at 7:00 o’clock the following morning. [16]

The defense made capital of the testimony of prosecution witness

Dr. Abas to the effect that Quiñones,
Jr. died because of a vehicular accident.
In ruling out said theory, however, the lower court, in its decision of May 7, 1986, said:

“The accused, to augment their alibi, have pointed to

this Court that the Certificate of Death have shown that the victim’s death was
caused by a vehicular accident. To this,
notwithstanding, the Court cannot give credit for some reasons. First, the fact of
the alleged vehicular
accident has not been fully established.
Second, Esmeraldo Quiñones,
Sr., (the) father of the victim, testified that Dr. Abas
told him that if his son was hacked by a bolo on the face and then run over the
entire head by a vehicle’s tire, then that hacking on the face could not be
visibly seen on the head (t.s.n., pp. 16-17, October
13, 1981). Third, Exhibit ‘2’ (the
photograph of the victim taken immediately after his body had been brought
home) is a hard evidence. It will attestly (sic) show that the entire head was not
crushed by
any vehicle. On the contrary, it shows
that only half of the face and head, was damaged with the wound starting on a
sharp edge horizontally. There are
contusions and abrasions on the upper left shoulder and on the neck while the

© 2024 - batas.org | 5
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

body downwards has none of it, while on the right forehead there is another
wound caused by a sharp instrument. Therefore, it is simple, that if the victim
was run over by a vehicle, the other half portion of his head and downward part
of his body must have been likewise seriously damaged, which there are none.” [17]

The lower court also found that Iligan’s

group conspired to kill anyone or all members of the group of the victim to vindicate the
boxing on the
face of Edmundo Asis. It appreciated
the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery and
accordingly convicted Iligan and Edmundo Asis of the
crime of murder and
imposed on them the aforementioned penalty.

Iligan and Edmundo

Asis interposed this appeal professing innocence of the crime for which
they were convicted. For the second time, they attributed Quiñones, Jr.’s death to a
vehicular accident.

No eyewitnesses were presented to prove that Quiñones,

Jr. was run over by a vehicle. The
defense relies on the testimony
of Dr. Abas, a prosecution witness, who swore that
the multiple fracture on the head of Quiñones, Jr.
was caused by a vehicular accident [18]

which opinion was earlier put in writing

by the same witness in the
postmortem examination. Dr. Abas justified his conclusion by what he considered as tire
marks on the victim’s left shoulder and the right side of his neck.[19]

He also testified that the incised wound

located at the victim’s right eyebrow could have been caused by a sharp bolo
but it was so superficial that
it could not have caused the victim’s death. [20]

Circumstantial evidence on

© 2024 - batas.org | 6
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

record indeed point to the veracity of the actual occurrence of the vehicular
mishap. One such evidence is the
testimony of prosecution witness Zaldy Asis that when he helped bring home the body of
Quiñones, Jr., he told
the victim’s father, Esmeraldo Quiñones, Sr. that
“before Esmeraldo Quiñones
(Jr.) was run over by a vehicle, he was hacked by Fernando Iligan.” [21]

When asked why he mentioned an automobile, Zaldy Asis said that he did not notice any
vehicle around but he mentioned it “because his (Quiñones, Jr.) head was busted.” [22]

It is therefore not farfetched to conclude that Zaldy

Asis had actual knowledge of said accident but for
understandable reasons he declined to declare it in court. Defense witness Marciano
Mago, the barangay captain
of Sto. Domingo, also testified that when he went to
the scene of the crime, he saw bits of the brain of the victim scattered across
the road where he also saw tire marks. [23]

For its part, the prosecution, through the victim’s father,

presented evidence to the effect that Iligan authored
the maceration of half of the victim’s head.
Quiñones, Sr. testified that from their house,
which was about five meters away from the road, he saw Fernando Iligan holding a
“sinampalok”
as he, together with Edmundo Asis
and Juan Macandog, chased someone. During the second time that he saw the three
accused, he heard Iligan say, “Dali, ayos na yan.” [24]

Hence, the lower court concluded that the victim’s head was “chopped”
resulting in the splattering of his brain all over the place. [25]
It should be emphasized,
however,
that the testimony came from a biased witness and it was uncorroborated.

While the factual findings of the trial court are generally given due respect by the appellate
court,
an appeal of a criminal case throws it open for a complete review of all
errors, by commission or omission, as may be imputable to the trial court. [26]

In this instance, the lower court erred in finding that the maceration of one
half of the head of the victim was also caused by Iligan

© 2024 - batas.org | 7
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

for the evidence on record point to a different conclusion. We are convinced beyond
peradventure that
indeed, after Quiñones, Jr. had fallen from the
bolo-hacking perpetrated by Iligan, he was run over
by a vehicle. This finding, however, does not in any way
exonerate Iligan from liability for the death of Quiñones, Jr.

Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability

shall be incurred “by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.”
Based on the doctrine that “el que es causa de la causa es causa
del mal causado” (he who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil caused), [27]

the essential requisites of Article 4 are:

(a) that an intentional
felony has been committed, and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the
direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender. [28]

We hold that these requisites are present in

this case.

The intentional felony committed was the hacking of the head of Quiñones, Jr. by Iligan.
That it was
considered as
superficial by the physician who autopsied Quiñones
is beside the point. What is material is
that by the instrument used in
hacking Quiñones, Jr. and the location of the wound, the assault was meant not only
to immobilize the victim but to do away with him as it was directed at a vital
and delicate part of the body: the head. [29]

The hacking incident happened on the national highway [30]

where vehicles are expected to pass any moment.

One such vehicle passed seconds later
when Lukban and Zaldy
Asis, running scared and having barely negotiated the

© 2024 - batas.org | 8
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

distance of around 200 meters, heard shouts of people. Quiñones, Jr.,

weakened by the hacking blow which sent him to the cemented highway, was run
over by a vehicle.

Under these circumstances, we hold that while Iligan’s hacking of Quiñones, Jr.’s head
might not
have been the direct cause, it was the proximate cause of the latter’s
death. Proximate legal cause is defined
as “that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain
of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor,
the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that
the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act
or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.” [31]

In other words, the sequence of events from Iligan’s

assault on him to the time Quiñones, Jr. was run
over by a vehicle is, considering the very short span of time between them, one unbroken
chain of
events. Having triggered such events, Iligan cannot escape liability.

We agree with the lower court that the defense of alibi cannot
turn the tide in favor of Iligan because he was positively
seen at the scene of the crime and identified by the prosecution witnesses. [32]

But we disagree with the lower court with regards to its findings
on the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Treachery has
been appreciated by the lower
court in view of the suddenness of the attack on the group of Quiñones, Jr.
Suddenness of such attack, however, does not by itself show treachery. [33]

There must be evidence that the mode of attack was consciously adopted by the
appellant to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend
himself.[34]

In this case, the hacking of Edmundo Asis by Iligan followed by the

chasing of the trio by the group of Iligan was a
warning to the deceased and his companions of the hostile attitude of the

© 2024 - batas.org | 9
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

appellants. The group of Quiñones, Jr. was therefore placed on guard for any
subsequent attacks against them. [35]

The requisites necessary to appreciate evident premeditation have

likewise not been met in this case.
Thus, the prosecution failed to prove all of the following: (a) the time when the accused
determined to
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung
to their determination to commit the crime; and (c) the lapse of sufficient
length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act. [36]

Absent any qualifying circumstances, Iligan

must be held liable only for homicide.
Again, contrary to the lower court’s finding, proof beyond reasonable
doubt has not been established to hold Edmundo Asis liable as Iligan’s
co-conspirator. Edmundo
Asis did not take any active part in the infliction of the wound on the head of Quiñones, Jr.
which led to his running over by a vehicle and consequent death. As earlier pointed out, the
testimony that he was carrying a
stone at the scene of the crime
hardly merits credibility being uncorroborated and coming from an
undeniably biased witness. Having been
the companion of Iligan, Edmundo
Asis must have known of the former’s
criminal intent but mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to a
conspiracy. There must be intentional participation in the act with a view to the furtherance
of the common design and
purpose.[37]

Such being the case, his mere presence at the scene of the crime did not make him
a co-conspirator,
a co-principal or an accomplice to the assault perpetrated by Iligan.[38]

Edmundo Asis therefore

deserves exoneration.

© 2024 - batas.org | 10
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

There being no mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposable on

Iligan is reclusion temporal medium (Arts. 249 and 64, Revised Penal Code). Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is that within
the range of prision mayor as minimum and reclusion
temporal medium as maximum. We find insufficient proof to warrant the
award of P256,960 for the victim’s unrealized income and therefore, the same is
disallowed.

WHEREFORE, appellant Fernando Iligan

y Jamito is hereby convicted of the crime of homicide
for which he is imposed the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium as maximum and he shall
indemnify the heirs of Esmeraldo
Quiñones, Jr. in the amount of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000). Appellant Edmundo
Asis is hereby acquitted of the crime charged against
him. Costs against appellant Iligan.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., and Bidin, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

[1]

Presided by Judge Luis D. Dictado.

[2]

TSN, February 12, 1981, pp.

54-55.
[3]

TSN, February 11, 1981, p.

7.

© 2024 - batas.org | 11
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990
[4]

TSN, February 12, 1981, pp.

57-58.
[5]

Ibid., pp. 58-59.

[6]

Ibid., p. 59.
[7]

Ibid., p. 63.
[8]

Ibid., pp. 59-60.

[9]

Exh. A.
[10]

TSN, May 11, 1983, p. 316.

[11]

Ibid., pp. 317-318.

[12]

Ibid., p. 319.
[13]

Ibid., pp. 320, 322-323.

[14]

Ibid., p. 325.
[15]

TSN, August 29, 1983, pp.

349-350.
[16]

Ibid., p. 351.
[17]

Decision, pp. 8-9.

[18]

TSN, September 2, 1981, p.

114.

© 2024 - batas.org | 12
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990
[19]

Ibid., p. 121.
[20]

Ibid., pp. 114-116.

[21]

TSN, February 12, 1981, p.

60.
[22]

Ibid., p. 63.
[23]

TSN, February 24, 1982, pp.

196 & 208-209.
[24]

TSN, January 19, 1982, pp.

157-163.
[25]

Decision, p. 8.
[26]

People v. Valerio, Jr., L-4116, February 25, 1982, 112 SCRA 208, 231.
[27]

People v. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801, March

27, 1974, 56 SCRA 138, 144.
[28]

People v. Mananquil, L-35574, September 28, 1984, 132 SCRA 196,

207.
[29]

See: People v. Diana, 32

Phil. 344 (1915).
[30]

TSN, February 11, 1981, p.

8.
[31]

Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.

No. 72964, January 7, 1988,

© 2024 - batas.org | 13
 G.R. No. 75369. November 26, 1990

157 SCRA 1 quoting Vda. de Bataclan

v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181.
[32]

People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 72400, January 15, 1988, 157 SCRA 71.
[33]

People v. Gadiano, L-31818, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 559.

[34]

People v. Crisostomo, L-32243, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 47.

[35]

People v. Mercado, L-33492, March

30, 1988, 159 SCRA 455.
[36]

People v. Batas, G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989, 176 SCRA 46.
[37]

People v. Izon, 104 Phil. 690 (1958).

[38]

Orobio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57519, September 13, 1988, 165 SCRA 316.

Date created: June 19, 2015

© 2024 - batas.org | 14