FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 218425, September 27, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILSON CACHO Y SONGCO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
TIJAM, J.:
For automatic review is the Decision1 dated July 1, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06123 which affirmed the Decision2 dated October 8, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, in Criminal Case Nos. 7522 and 7523 finding Wilson Cacho y Songco (accused-appellant) guilty of the crimes of Murder and Destructive Arson.
Accused-appellant is charged with the crime of Murder under the following Information, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 7522
That on or about the 1st day of January 2004, in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a bladed deadly weapon, with intent to kill, and with attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation and nighttime which changes the nature of the felony to a Heinous crime of Murder, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and hack with said weapon and behead one MARIO BALBAO Y ADAMI, which resulted in his death soon thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Criminal Case No. 7523
That on or about the 1st day of January 2004, in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the deliberate intent to cause destruction to the house of MARIO BALBAO Y ADAMI, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously set fire to and burn the said house causing its total destruction for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of the commission of the crime of Murder with attendant special aggravating circumstance that the offender was motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner of the property in the commission of the felony.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
On January 2, 2004, at around 8:10 o'clock in the morning, PO2 Emelito Salen (PO2 Salen) and SPO4 Onofre Tavas (SPO4 Tavas) of the Rodriguez Police Station received a report from a certain Willy Cacho about a fire in Sitio Catmon, Brgy. San Rafael, Rodriguez, Rizal. PO2 Salen and SPO4 Tavas, who were accompanied by members of the Bureau of Fire Protection, namely: SFO1 Damasa Viscara and FO2 Casiple, went to Sitio Catmon to verify said report.
Upon arriving in Sitio Catmon, the police officers saw a burned house, which was owned by a certain Boy who was later identified as Mario Balbao. Upon investigation, they discovered a burned body of a headless man underneath an iron sheet. Willy Cacho informed the police officers that it was his brother, [accused-appellant], who killed Boy. [Accused-appellant's] wife likewise told the police officers that her husband was a patient of [the] National Center for Mental Health and has a recurring mental illness.
Thereafter, the police officers went to the house of [accused-appellant] where they saw a shallow pit measuring one (1) foot in diameter and five (5) inches deep with a steel peg standing at the center, which they believed was used to bum a head because there were traces of ash and a human skull on top of the heap of charcoal. The police officers then saw [accused-appellant] in his backyard. Upon introducing themselves as police officers, [accused-appellant] acted strangely and exhibited signs of mental illness. According to SPO4 Tavas, [accused-appellant] admitted killing Boy and burning the latter's house but did not say why he did it.
When they tried to arrest him, [accused-appellant] became wild. The police officers sought help from other people to subdue [accused-appellant] and to place him inside the mobile car. [Accused-appellant] was then brought to the prosecutors [sic] office for inquest proceedings. After the inquest, [accused-appellant] was brought to the National Center for Mental Health for confinement.5
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 7522, finding [accused-appellant] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. No pronoucement as to cost.
2. In Criminal Case No. 7523, finding [accused-appellant] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Destructive Arson (Article 320 par[.] 5 RPC as amended by Sec[.] 10 of R[.]A[. No.] 7659) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. No pronouncement as to cost.
[Accused-appellant] is hereby ordered to be committed to the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City for service of sentence.
[Accused-appellant] is to be credited for the time spent for his preventive detention in accordance with Art[.] 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214.
SO ORDERED.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The decision dated October 8, 2012 of the [RTC] of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.9
Article 12 of the [RPC] provides for one of the circumstances which will exempt one from criminal liability which is when the perpetrator of the act was an imbecile or insane, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. This circumstance, however, is not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. Under Article 800 of the Civil Code, the presumption is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. x x x.13 (Citation omitted)
Atty. Censon: x x x x Q. Madam Witness, do you know one Wilson Cacho or have you happened to know a person named Wilson Cacho? A. Yes, sir. Q. On what occasion did you meet this person named Wilson Cacho? A. I was able to examine the said patient on July 23 on his third consult at the forensic pavilion and then I was the one who admitted the patient on November 23, 2007, sir. x x x x Q. What was on your finding on Wilson Cacho when he consulted you on July 23, 2007? A. As per our records, the patient had been ill since he was 17 years old. His first consult was on July 15, 1996 and was admitted for two (2) months and was discharged on September 1996. A follow up after a month, he was in the out-patient and then he was lost for follow-up for eight (8) years. He consulted again on January 7, 2004 where he was admitted and confined for five (5) days and after that two (2) years again, he consulted at the out-patient, now at the forensic pavilion. This was in November 24, 2006 and another consultation at our forensic pavilion on December 18, 2006. And on July 23, was our first consult in the out-patients and in November 24, that was the time we admitted the patient, sir. x x x x Q. Madam Witness, you said that Mr. Wilson Cacho has been consulting with the National Center for Mental Health since he was 17 years of age, and do you know what was the finding that made him to be admitted for two (2) months? A. Based on our records, he was diagnosed with major depression with psychosis in 1996 and then after three (3) months, his first consult at the out-patient, he was diagnosed now with psychosis and in the second admission in January 7, 2004, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, sir. x x x x Q. You said that accusd Wilson Cacho was admitted for two (2) months in the year 1996 and you said he was discharged, for what reason he was [sic] discharged? A. Basing from the presenting complaint when he was admitted there where remissions, there were no symptoms seen or observed so he was discharged and was requested to have regular follow-ups, sir. Q. In his history was he given or recommended to take medicines? A. Yes, sir. Q. So, what medicine was recommended for him to take when he was discharged for the first time in 1996? A. He was given anti-psychotic and anti-depressant, sir. x x x x Q. Awhile ago I asked you what will happen to a person who have been prescribed these medicines and he fails to take them? A. Most of them will have relapse. The symptoms would go back, sir. Q. Do you know the cost of these medicines if you take it regularly? A. At that time I cannot recall but at this present time, halluperidol can cost from P20.00 to P50.00 a day and the anti-depression can cost P20.00 to P100.00 a day, sir. Q. Can you consider that affordable to persons who even fails to eat three (3) times a day? A. No, sir. Q. Can you please tell the date again when this patient consulted again to your hospital? A. He came back on January 7, 2004 after eight (8) years of follow-up, sir. Q. For what reason was he made to consult your hospital? A. Based on our records, the presenting complaint is that "nagwawala, nanghahabol ng itak," sir. 16
To ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind within a reasonable period both before and after that time. Direct testimony is not required. Neither are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, suffices; for the unfathomable mind can only be known by overt acts.18
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
- With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
- In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
- By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
- On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
- With evident premeditation.
- With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
"There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, 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." "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape." Otherwise stated, an unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense is the essence of treachery.21
(1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) overt act/acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. x x x The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. x x x. 23
1. In Criminal Case No. 7522, accused-appellant Wilson Cacho y Songco is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Mario Balbao y Adami the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. A legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on the total amount of damages counted from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.
2. In Criminal Case No. 7523, accused-appellant Wilson Cacho y Songco is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Destructive Arson and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Mario Balbao y Adami the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. A legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on the total amount of damages counted from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
• Designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 23, 2017 vice Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, concurred in by Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan; rollo, pp. 2-9.
2 Penned by Judge Josephine Zarate-Fernandez; CA rollo, pp. 42-49.
3 Id. at 42.
4 Id. at 42-43.
5 Rollo, pp. 2-3.
6 CA rollo, pp. 42-49.
7 Id. at 48-49.
8 Rollo, pp. 2-9.
9 Id. at 8.
10 People v. Dahil, et al., 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
11 CA rollo, p. 27.
12 699 Phil. 256 (2012).
13 Id. at 226-267.
14 People of the Philippines v. Christopher Mejaro Roa, G.R. No. 225599, March 22, 2017.
15 Verdadero v. People, G.R. No. 216021, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 490, 502, citing People v. Isla, supra note 12.
16 TSN, March 24, 2011, pp. 4-7.
17 389 Phil. 216 (2000).
18 Id. at 233.
19 People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 743 (2012).
20 720 Phil. 818 (2013).
21 Id. at 826.
22 People v. Isla, supra note 12.
23 Id. at 270.
24 People v.Garcia, 722 Phil. 60, 73 (2013).
25 AMENDING THE LAW ON ARSON. Approved on March 7, 1979.
26 Section 10. Article 320 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
- One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions.
- Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade, workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
- Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.
- Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities.
- Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
- Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.
- In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials. If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
27 People v. Baluntong, 629 Phil. 441, 446-447 (2010).
28 Records, p. 10.
29 Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
30 Section 1, Act No. 4103
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
31 Sim, Jr. v. CA, 472 Phil. 503, 516-517 (2004).
32 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Approved on June 24, 2006.
33 People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 15, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.