Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. L-94709-10 June 15, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused Antiporda.

QUIASON, J.:

This is an appeal from the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Bangued, Abra, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 442 and 443, convicting Ruben Cabarrubias alias "Amben" and Zosimo
Antiporda alias "Samong" of murder (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code). The dispositive portion of the
assailed decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds both accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 442 and 443
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as defined and penalized in
Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the killing of Jonalyn Espiritu in Criminal Case
No. 442 being qualified by treachery and taking advantage of superior strength with
the aggravating circumstance of nighttime; while the killing of Pedro Espiritu in
Criminal Case No. 443 is qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime, with no mitigating circumstances proven in both cases, and sentences
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the families of their
victims the amount of P100,000.00 each, and to pay he costs of these proceedings
(Rollo, p.25).

The information filed in Criminal Case No. 442 against the accused Ruben Cabarrubias reads as
follows:

That on or about July 31, 1986, at about 7:00 o'clock at night, at Barangay Patoc, in
the municipality of Bucay, Province of Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery
and evident premeditation and while armed with a sharp-pointed bolo, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one Jonalyn
Espiritu, an 8 year-old child, hitting her on her abdominal cavity and on other parts of
her body, which multiple stab wounds caused her death shortly thereafter (Rollo, p.
181).
The information filed in Criminal Case No. 443 against the accused Zosimo Antiporda reads as
follows:

That on or about July 13, 1986, at about 7:00 o'clock at night, at Barangay Patoc, in the municipality
of Bucay, Province of Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation and while armed with a
sharp-pointed bolo, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab
one Pedro Espiritu, hitting him on his neck, which stab wound caused his death shortly thereafter
(Rollo, pp. 18-19).

At his arraignment, appellant Cabarrubias manifested his willingness to plead guilty to the lesser
offense of homicide in Criminal Case No. 442, and to assume responsibility to the charge in Criminal
Case No. 443, but these manifestations were not accepted by the trial court (Order, March 5, 1988;
TSN, August 18, 1987, p. 2).

The arraignments proceeded with both appellants pleading not guilty. The two cases were tried
jointly "because of their proximity of time and place of occurrence" (Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 19).

The records in the two cases show that at about P7:00 P. M. of July 13, 1986, Talledo Espiritu was
at his house waiting for his 17-year old son, Pedro, to come home from the fields. Pedro suddenly
appeared at the door, with a gaping wound on his neck and blood stains all over his clothes.
Embracing his father, Pedro told him that he was stabbed by "Samong", referring to Antiporda. After
identifying his assailant, Pedro collapsed and he died a few moments later. Talledo then shouted for
help.

At about the same time, the screams of a child were heard, Domingo Espiritu, a next-door neighbor
of Talledo, ran outside his house to where the screams were coming from. He saw his eight-year old
granddaughter, Jonalyn Espiritu, squatting on the ground about three meters from Talledo's house.
Domingo saw appellants running away from the scene, with Antiporda heading towards the direction
of the house of Saturnina Belaras. Jonalyn told Domingo that she was stabbed by "Nong Amben",
referring to Cabarrubias.

Estefana Tubana, the adoptive mother of Jonalyn and who rushed to her succor, was told by
Jonalyn that she saw Antiporda stab Pedro and that appellants chased her upon noticing her
presence.

Saturnina Belaras, a neighbor of Talledo's, was washing dishes when someone tried to forcibly open
the door of her house. When she opened the door, Antiporda entered and talked with Saturnina's
son. Antiporda did not stay long and hurriedly left the house when shouts for help were heard.

Jonalyn died the following day, succumbing to five wounds.

Criminal Case No. 442

Cabarrubias admitted before the trial court to killing both Jonalyn Espiritu and Pedro Espiritu. He
testified that he went to see Pedro to confront him about the latter's attempt to electrocute
Cabarrubias' sister with an electric fishing device. Pedro reacted by unsheathing his bolo and
attacking Cabarrubias, who was able to parry the attack and stab Pedro. He claimed that after the
traumatic incident, he was possessed by a state of mind that bordered on insanity overpowered by a
force beyond his control. This was his explanation of why he stabbed Jonalyn who happened to
cross his path (Cabarrubias' Brief, pp. 4-5, 7-9; Rollo, pp. 82-83, 85-87).
In this appeal, Cabarrubias asserts that he should have been exempted from liability on the ground
of insanity and of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

Insanity was not invoked as a defense by Cabarrubias in the trial court and no evidence was
presented to overcome the presumption of sanity. It is too late on appeal to raise the defense of
insanity (People v. Yagong, 181 SCRA 479 [1990]).

The evidence on record does not show any outward act of Cabarrubias, indicating his "complete
deprivation of intelligence" nor "total deprivation of freedom of the will." On the other hand, as
pointed out by the Solicitor General, Cabarrubias was able to give a lucid account of the series of
events, from the moment he crossed path with Jonalyn to the moment he stabbed her (Consolidated
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 28-31; Rollo, pp. 164-167). He was able to describe the bolo he had used
and to demonstrate how he used it (TSN, August 25, 1988, pp. 23-24).

There is also no showing in the record which would lead this Court to a finding that Cabarrubias had
acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

Cabarrubias further contends that he should have been convicted of homicide, not murder, and that
the mitigating circumstances of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and
the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, should have been appreciated in his favor.

He alleges that he stabbed Jonalyn without any intention of killing her but merely to stop her from
screaming. He poi nts out that Jonalyn did not suffer any mortal wound as shown by the fact that
after being stabbed, she was still strong enough to assume a squatting position and even answer
question asked her by Domingo Espiritu. He further claims that Jonalyn did not die as a result of the
stabbing but of shock and internal hemorrhage secondary to her wounds (Cabarrubias' Brief, pp. 10-
13, Rollo, pp. 88-91).

Contrary to the claim of Cabarrubias, the evidence shows that he intended to kill Jonalyn. He used a
bolo to inflict five incisions and penetrating wounds on the head and torso of Jonalyn, a mere eigth-
year old child. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably
sufficient to produce the result that they actually produced—the victim (People v. Amit 32 SCRA 95
[1970]).

Cabarrubias asserts that Pedro's alleged act of attempting to electrocute Cabarrubias' sister, Pedro's
alleged unlawful aggression, and Jonalyn's screams produced the passion and obfuscation that
deprived him of the time for reflection (Cabarrubias' Brief, pp. 13-15; Rollo, pp. 91-93).

The circumstance of passion and obfuscation is not mitigating when the accused acted in a spirit of
lawlessness. Besides, the screams of an eight-year old child are not provocative enough to generate
a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrolled fury (People v. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283 [1933]).

The trial court convicted Cabarrubias of murder qualified by treachery and taking advantage of
superior strength and aggravated by nighttime.

The trial court is correct in finding Cabarrubias guilty of murder by treachery. Killing a child is
characterized by treachery even if the manner of the assault is not shown because the weakness of
the victim due to her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused (People v.
Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431 [1991]).
However, taking advantage of superior strength was not alleged as a qualifying circumstance in the
information and, therefore, it cannot be properly appreciated as such. Neither can it be appreciated
as a generic circumstance because it is absorbed in treachery.

Nighttime cannot be properly appreciated against Cabarrubias because there is no evidence to show
that the purposely sought this circumstance to commit the crime or to facilitate the commission of the
crime (People v. De Los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707 [1991]). Granting that nighttime attended the
commission of the crime, this circumstances is also absorbed in treachery.

Criminal Case No. 443

To bolster his defense of alibi, Antiporda relies on Cabarrubias' testimony in open court admitting
that he, not Antiporda, was the one who stabbed to death Pedro Espiritu. Antiporda points to this
testimony of Cabarrubias, his lack of motive to kill Pedro and the dimly-lit place of the stabbing,
which made identification difficult, as sufficient grounds to negate the weight of the dying declaration
of Pedro (Antiporda's Brief, pp. 6-9; Rollo, pp. 40-43).

The trial court dismissed Cabarrubias' version of the killing of Pedro as a "shall concoction and
confabulation to save the neck of his cousin and constant companion, accused Zosimo Antiporda in
Criminal Case No. 443." (Decision, p. 4; Rollo, p. 21).

The version of Cabarrubias is uncorroborated and is contradicted by the evidence of the

The trial court found no reason of doubt the credibility of Pedro in making his ante
mortem declaration and that of Talledo Espiritu in conveying said declaration (Decision, p. 7; p. 24).
We find no reason to depart from the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses are given the highest degree of respect by the appellate court (People v. Saulo, 211
SCRA 888 [1992]).

Anent the defense of alibi, this defense is unavailing where there is affirmative evidence of the
presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People v. Plaza,
140 SCRA 277 [1985]; People v. Pigon, 173 SCRA 607 [1989]).

Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused
therein are definitely established (People v. Caranzo, 209 SCRA 232 [1992]).

We find, however, that the trial court erred in appreciating the circumstance of treachery, which it
considered to qualify the crime to murder. Treachery cannot be appreciated in the absence of
evidence of the mode of attack; it cannot be presumed, but must be proved positively (People v.
Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 [1992]).

Nighttime cannot be properly appreciated against Antiporda, there being no evidence that it was
purposely sought by him to commit the offense (People v. De Los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707 [1991]).

Consequently, Antiporda can only be convicted of homicide, with no modifying circumstance.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with the
following modifications.
In Criminal Case No. 442, appellant Ruben Cabarrubias is found guilty of murder and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Jonalyn Espiritu the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as indemnity.

In Criminal Case No. 443, appellant Zosimo Antiporda is found guilty of homicide, and sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is
ordered to indemnify the heirs of Pedro Espiritu in the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, C.J., Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.