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 with
murder 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 mutually
helping one another, with delierate intent to &ill, treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maul and sta on the different parts of his ody
one Juan *lacer y +oreno, therey inflicting upon the latter serious physical in)uries which
caused his death.
'ontrary to +aw. 1
The identities of the three John Does, having een suse,uently 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 not
guilty at his arraignment.
1hermie (aglalang, a niece of the victim testified that at aout !2:22 o3cloc& in the evening of January
!", !##$, accused-appellant, Antonio Igting, -eli. Almaden and /et 0ello were having a drin&ing
spree in front of a sari-saristore at 0alta4ar 0u&id, !2th Avenue, %aloo&an 'ity. 5hile the four were
drin&ing, (aglalang3s uncle, victim Juan *lacer and his companion 0ernie Aalos went to the
same sari-sari store to uy cigarettes. 1uddenly and without any provocation at all, Antonio Igting stood
up and struc& the unsuspecting *lacer with a steel chair causing the latter to fall down. 5hen the latter
was already lying prone on the ground, accused-appellant, /et 0ello and -eli. Almaden ganged up on
him, hitting their victim repeatedly with chairs on different parts of his ody. 6ot content with merely
using chairs, Antonio Igting and -eli. Almaden pulled out their balisong and staed the victim.
Thereafter, Antonio Igting, /et 0ello and -eli. Almaden scampered away from the crime scene.
Accused-appellant remained and continued ashing the head of the victim with a steel chair.
(aglalang, accompanied y her oyfriend 7now her husand8 (arwin Aclaw, found themselves helpless
in the face of the onslaught. -irst, they were outnumered y the aggressors, two as against four.
1econd, they were unarmed. Third, Antonio Igting and -eli. Almaden warned them against intervening.
To manifest their intention, Igting and Almaden even randished their balisong at them.
The victim was immediately rought to Dr. Jose 9eyes (emorial Hospital ut he e.pired at ::22 o3cloc&
in the morning of January !#, !##$. (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& which
the latter refused. -eeling slighted, accused Antonio Igting hit Aalos on the head with a glass. 5hen
Aalos fled, the four accused vented their ire on *lacer. Antonio Igting grasped the victim3s nec& and
punched 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 balisong and repeatedly staed the victim
on different parts of his ody. Thereafter, the assailants, with the e.ception of accused-appellant, fled
from the scene of the crime. Accused-appellant remained, graed a chair with steel legs and hit *lacer
several times on the head.
5hen accused-appellant was rought to the hospital where the victim was confined, the victim
identified him as one of the culprits.
/n cross-e.amination, Aclaw further testified that while -eli. Almaden as staing the victim, the latter
was eing held y /et 0ello, while accused-appellant and Antonio Igting stood guard around the
victim.
Accused-appellant denied any participation in the crime; instead, he averred that it was -eli. Almaden
who should e held answerale for the death of Juan *lacer.
The trial court was not convinced y accused-appellant3s denials. Thus, on /ctoer !!, !##: the
9egional Trial 'ourt-0r. !$# of %aloo&an 'ity found him guilty of the crime charged and accordingly
sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of fourteen 7!<8 years of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to reclusion perpetua, as ma.imum, and to indemnify the heirs of Juan *lacer in the amount
of *=2,222.22.
The court a quo ruled >
?pon the evidence, the conscience of this 'ourt would never e at rest if it asolves accused
Arnold Hilario from his proven liaility for the death of Juan *lacer.
'oncededly, Arnold Hilario was not the accused who repeatedly plunged the deadly lade of the
@$# alisong@ into the vital parts of the victim3s ody. Admittedly, too, there is no showing that
Arnold Hilario was the one who started the one-sided acts of aggression against the victim
whose misfortune was to engage in what turned out to e his last drin&ing spree with < men
whose inclination was to destroy and to &ill when ineriated. Aven so, Arnold Hilario3s hand is
clearly stained with the victim3s lood. He appears to have acted in concert with his co-accused
in &ic&ing the victim first, and in suse,uently hitting him with a chair until -eli. Almaden finally
dealt the coup de grace in the form of repeated stas on the victim3s ody. As if Arnold Hilario
wanted more lood from the fallen victim who was already mortally wounded, he still repeatedly
struc& 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 and
helplessness.
The concerted attac& was so une.pectedly sudden that the victim had no semlance of
defense. This utterly une,ual footing in the mode of e.ecution of the attac& is pure and
simple 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 the
appellate court was not persuaded. It affirmed the findings of the court a quo. However, it modified the
penalty to reclusion perpetua. Hence, pursuant to 1ec. !:, par. 7$8, 9ule !$< of the 9ules of 'ourt, the
case was certified to this 'ourt for review.
0oth the lower court and the appellate court found that accused-appellant clearly and actively
participated 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. The
two prosecution eyewitness, (aglalang and Aclaw, sustantially testified to this effect.
These assertions were, however, refuted y the medical findings of Dr. (a.imo 9eyes who testified that
the victim suffered no contusion, arasion, laceration or hematoma. The autopsy report precisely
indicated 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.2
cm. running oli,uely, right side of chest.
STAB WOUNDS:
!. Alliptical, gaping, :.2 cm. with clean cut edges and one e.tremity sharp, other is contused,
located over the sternal area, level of =th ri, non-penetrating.
$. Three 7:8 in numer, all with clean cut edges and with one e.tremity sharp, other in contused,
varying in si4e, upper is $.= cm. and level of :rd intercostal space; middle is !.2 cm. level of <th
intercostal space and lower is !.2 cm. level of "th intercostal space, all directed medially,
ac&ward and downward, all entering the right thoracic cavity, severing the three loes of right
lung with an appro.imate depth of !2.2 cm. to !!.2 cm.
:. Alliptical, gaping, $.= cm. with clean cut edges and one e.tremity sharp, other is contused,
located over the right posterior a.illary line, non-penetrating.
<. 1ta wound, $.2 cm. located over the sternal area, non-penetrating.
Heart and all other visceral organs are pale. 1tomach, !C< filled with partly digested food
materials. 3
Thus, in his direct e.amination:
-iscal Inciong:
D Have you seen other in)uries that were inflicted on the ody of the deceasedE
A 5ell, nothing more e.cept the staed 7sic8 wounds.
D Are there contusionsE
A There was none.
... ... ... 4
In his cross-e.amination, Dr. 9eyes further testified:
Atty. /ngtengco:
... ... ...
D 6ow, in your diagrammatic illustration of the cadaver of the decedent, you
have een indicating only sta wounds sustained y the decedent. 5ere there
no other in)uries aside from these sta woundsE
A There was none, sir.
D 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 even
arasions.
D There was no sign that the decedent was ever or the decedent ever received
any lows y a lunt instrumentE
A There was none, sir.
... ... ... 5
This 'ourt is more inclined to elieve the testimony of Dr. (a.imo 9eyes who is an impartial and
disinterested witness. His medical findings elied the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. If it were
true 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, no
such indications were found. If indeed accused-appellant hit the victim3s head with a steel chair a
numer of times, then surely, there would have een wounds in that area, ut none were found. All
these lead to the conclusion that accused-appellant did not hit the victim with a steel chair on different
parts of his ody, including the head. The defense successfully cast dout on the crediility of the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses (aglalang and Aclaw on this particular aspect.
However, even without the autopsy report elying the testimonies of (aglalang and Aclaw, the
crediility of 1hermie (aglalang as a prosecution witness is already suspect. (aglalang, in
her Sinumpaang Salaysay, 6 stated that it was only -eli. Almaden who staed her uncle Juan *lacer, ut
in her direct testimony, she alleged that Antonio Igting and -eli. Almaden staed her uncle. Antonio Igting
allegedly staed the victim on the side and the ac& while -eli. Almaden allegedly staed the victim near
his heart, his side, left arm and his ac&. (aglalang allegedly saw Igting staing her uncle through the
movements 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 saw
where the fatal thrusts specifically landed is not credile. As stated earlier, these testimonies were not
orne 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 through
the finding of the e.istence of conspiracy. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 'onspiracy, to e.ist, does
not re,uire an agreement for an appreciale period prior to the occurrence; it e.ists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its e.ecution. Direct
proof 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 themselves
when 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
constrained to rule that accused-appellant3s participation in the commission of the crime was his mere
presence in the crime scene, ut mere presence of the accused at the scene of the crime does not
imply conspiracy. 9
The only way y which appellant may e held culpale is proof eyond reasonale dout that he was a
conspirator, ut conspiracy, li&e the crime itself, must e proven eyond reasonale dout. The
presence 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 single
overt act, in the perpetration of the crime. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all of them
acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design to &ill the victim. Avidence of
intentional participation is imperative. /ne3s mere presence in the crime scene, y itself, does not ma&e
him a conspirator. 1#
It is hornoo& &nowledge that flight from the locus criminis is a strong indication of a guilty
mind. 11 ?nli&e his co-accused, accused-appellant did not flee from the crime scene. He even proceeded to
clean the tales, arrange the chairs and wash the utensils used during the drin&ing spree. The 'ourt finds his
non-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 to
dying 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 of
,uestions propounded y an attorney, the presence only of friends and prosecuting officers, the lac& of
elief of the declarant in a future life, rewards and punishment, the fact that the statements in the dying
declarations 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, Julia
Joregue, sister of the victim and */: Fivencio Gamoa, the investigating officer of the case, were
present. /f the three present, only Aclaw and Joregue testified as to the alleged dying declaration made
y Juan *lacer.
As pointed out earlier, the evidence, as well as the autopsy report, cast dout on (arwin Aclaw3s
crediility. /n the other hand, Julia Joregue, eing the sister of the victim, may e e.pected to e partial
to her rother. Interestingly, */: Gamoa did not corroorate the testimony of Aclaw and Joregue. In
any case, the so-called dying declaration is contrary to facts proven y the evidence presented y the
defense, 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 until
the contrary is proved. It is thus a.iomatic that an accused under our law is entitled to an ac,uittal
unless his guilt is proved eyond reasonale dout. In fact, unless the prosecution discharges the
urden of proving the guilt of the accused eyond reasonale dout, the latter need not even offer
evidence in his ehalf. 13
5HA9A-/9A, the decision of the 'ourt of Appeals dated January $H, !##H affirming the decision of
the 9egional Trial 'ourt-0ranch !$# of %aloo&an 'ity convicting accused-appellant of murder is
9AFA91AD and 1AT A1IDA. Accused-appellant Arnold Hilario y Igting is A'D?ITTAD and ordered
9A+AA1AD from confinement unless he is eing held for some other legal grounds. 6o costs.
1/ /9DA9AD.