THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 244051, April 28, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO CANILLO AND ANTHONY CANILLO, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Treachery must be present at the inception of an attack to qualify a
killing to murder. A treacherous act that happens during an attack or
subsequent to it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying or generic
aggravating circumstance.
This Court resolves an appeal1 assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Regional Trial Court Judgment3 convicting Eduardo Canillo (Eduardo) and Anthony Canillo (Anthony) of
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
On September 6, 2009,4 an Information5 for murder was filed against Eduardo and his son Anthony. They pleaded not guilty to the charge.6 On April 19, 2011, an amended Information7 was filed to include the bolos used for the alleged killing, which amendment the trial court accepted.8 The Information, as amended, reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 3rd day of September 2009 in the City of Bayawan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said both accused, armed with bolos, conspiring[,] confederating and helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, and without any just motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack, stab, and wound ALBERTO BOHOL, without giving him the opportunity to defend himself to ensure the execution of the act without risk to said accused out of any defense which the victim might have made, thereby inflicting upon him injuries causing his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim Alberto Bohol.Eduardo and Anthony were re-arraigned and once again pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued.10
Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.9 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
WHEREFORE, based on the prevailing facts, law and jurisprudence applicable, the court finds accused Eduardo Canillo alias "Edgar" and Anthony Canillo, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, qualified by treachery and with the attendant aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength with no mitigating circumstance duly proven by the prosecution. The imposable penalty would have been death. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, both accused shall be sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without parole. The accused shall pay in solidum the heirs of Alberto Bohol, the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php50,000.00 as moral damages; and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages; all with interest at the legal rate of six (6) percent per annum from finality of the judgment.The Judgment was appealed39 to the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was denied on May 28, 2018.40
SO ORDERED.38
ACCORDINGLY, the Judgment dated 8 September 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Bayawan City in Criminal Case No. 914 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.Eduardo and Anthony filed a Notice of Appeal,46 which the Court of Appeals gave due course to.47
The awards of civil indemnity ex delicto, moral and exemplary damages against Eduardo B. Canillo and Anthony A. Canillo are hereby increased to P100,000.00 each. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.45 (Emphasis in the original)
ARTICLE 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 perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:cralawlawlibraryArticle 14(16) of the same Code defines treachery:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
- 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 railroad, 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 any 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.
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating Circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:The lower courts63 both found that treachery attended Bohol's killing, qualifying it to murder and not just homicide. The Regional Trial Court held:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
....
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
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 act of Anthony Canillo in waylaying Alberto Bohol and when he faced Alberto Bohol in front he hacked the latter hitting the center of his head is obvious that treachery was attendant in the commission of the crime. Even if the attack was frontal, the same is treacherous when unexpected and Alberto Bohol was unarmed and he was not in the position to repel the attack and avoid it.64 (Citation omitted)The Court of Appeals, in turn, held:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The killing of [Bohol] was attended with treachery, the prosecution having established that the hacking of the victim was swift and sudden without any warning, leaving [Bohol] defenseless. Anthony himself even admitted that the victim had no weapon.The Court of Appeals is mistaken.
The eyewitness testified that he saw Alberto come out of the house with Eduardo and Anthony both holding bolos and attacked the victim.
"Q (Public Prosecutor): So, after you heard a sound which you described as 'agonto,' what happened next?
A: (Estrellanes): I stood up and I peep (sic) through the decorative hole because I heard a sound of footsteps running.
Q: So, what did you see when you peep at the decorative? (sic)
A: I saw Alberto running.
Q: What did you see?
A: When he reached beside his house, Anthony Canillo was also there.
....
Q: Now, after you saw Alberto Bohol run and he was waylaid at the side of the house by Anthony Canillo, what happened next?
A: When Anthony waylaid him, Anthony went in front of him and suddenly hack him on his head? (sic)65 (Emphasis in the original)
Q: You likewise said that you heard commotion at the room of your father and that according to you[,] your father and victim Alberto Bohol were fighting each other, did I get you right?Clearly, the attack on Bohol outside the house was a continuation of the altercation inside the house. It cannot be seen as a separate act which was attended by treachery, because treachery cannot happen midstream of an attack. Thus, accused-appellant Anthony's act of waylaying an escaping Bohol out on the street, even if he appeared to have deliberately positioned himself right in Bohol 's path to catch him off guard, cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
A: Yes.
Q: At that moment, is it correct for me to say that you get inside [the] room of your father and hacked Alberto Bohol right away?
A: Yes.
Q: And you likewise testified earlier that you continued hacking him right just there at the house of your sister Ann-Ann Canillo?
A: Yes.72 (Citation omitted)
For treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack continues, even if present at the subsequent stage, treachery is not a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance. The prosecution must adduce conclusive proof as to the manner in which the altercation started and resulted in the death of the victim. If the prosecution fails to discharge its burden, the crime committed is homicide and not murder.74 (Citation omitted)Tigle finds support in the early case of United States v. Balagtas.75 There, this Court explained that when a treacherous act is first committed during the attack, this would not constitute treachery or alevosia, as the treacherous act must have been present before the attack:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
After the commencement of such an attack and before its termination an accused person may have employed means or methods which were of a treacherous character, and yet such means or methods would not constitute the circumstance of alevosia. One continuous attack, such as the one which resulted in the death of the deceased Flores, can not be broken up into two or more parts and made to constitute separate, distinct, and independent attacks so that treachery may be injected therein and considered as a qualifying or aggravating circumstance.76The prosecution thus failed to prove that treachery attended Bohol's killing.
When the victim was cornered, a fatal hacking blow on the head was immediately released by Anthony. Knowing that Alberto was already defenseless and severely hurt, Eduardo still hacked him on the right side of his neck and even continued to stab him even when the victim collapsed on the ground.81Hence, the conviction for murder stands.
Q: (Public Prosecutor): Now, when Anthony Canillo hacked Alberto Bohol, where was Alberto Bohol hit?The lower courts found Estrellanes to be a more credible witness than the defense witnesses, as his testimony was delivered in a "categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner."84 Accused-appellants, by contrast, presented self-serving allegations that were not corroborated by credible witnesses.85 The Regional Trial Court stated:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A: (Estrellanes): The witness pointed to the center of his head.
Q: And what happened to Alberto Bohol when he was hit by the hacking blow delivered by Anthony Canillo?
A: He was zigzagging.
Q: And what ultimately happened to him after he was zigzagging?
A: When he was about to step back and he was zigzagging, he was also hacked by Eduardo and he was hit, as pointed to by the witness using his right hand, the right side of his neck. (sic)
Q: Where was Eduardo Canillo located when he hacked Alberto Bohol?
A: He followed Alberto Bohol.
Q: So, he was at the back of Alberto Bohol when this Eduardo Canillo hacked Alberto Bohol?
A: He was at the back of Alberto Bohol.
Q: What instrument did Eduardo Canillo used (sic) in delivering that hacking blow to Alberto Bohol?
A: Long bolo as demonstrated by the witness....
Q: And after Alberto Bohol was hit at the right side of ills neck, what happened next?
A: He slammed on the ground, he fall (sic) down on the ground facing downward.
Q: So, while Alberto was downward. what happened next?
A: When he was already facing on the ground, he was stabb by Eduardo at the back. (sic)83 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
The court gave credence to the testimony of Eric Estrellanes who was about 6.5 meters far, that he clearly saw the incident because the place has the illumination from the streetlights from the boulevard. Eric Estrellanes declared that when Alberto Bohol received the hack rutting ills head from Anthony Canillo, he zigzagged. While Alberto Bohol took a back step zigzagging, Eduardo Canillo who was behind Alberto Bohol using a long bolo also hacked the right neck of the latter causing Alberto Bohol to fall to the ground downward. When Alberto Bohol had fallen to the ground Eduardo Canillo stabbed the back portion of the body of Alberto Bohol.86The Regional Trial Court87 and the Court of Appeals88 also found that accused-appellants conspired against Bohol, as seen in their concerted actions in ganging up on him and hiding his body. The Regional Trial Court held:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Added to this, both accused agreed to transfer the dead body of the victim far from the house of An-An Canillo and washed the area with water in order to conceal the crime. What is more revealing is that both did not report to the police. Believing that nobody saw them, they continued their business of driving their "pot-pot" around the city on September 4, 2009 and up to noontime of September 5, 2009 because they were arrested by SPO4 Louie T. Batuto at the house of An-An Canillo.89It is well established that this Court gives the highest respect to a "trial court's factual findings, assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies," and "will generally not re-examine them" when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.90
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated February 17, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 20-21. Notice of Appeal.
2 Id. at 4-19. The May 28, 2018 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of this Court) and Edward B. Contreras of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 CA rollo, pp. 40-48. The September 8, 2015 Judgment was penned by Executive Presiding Judge Ananson E. Jayme of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 63.
4 Id. at 25.
5Rollo, p. 5. CA Decision.
6 Id. at 6. CA Decision.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 She is also named as Ismaelita C. Cabases in the Court of Appeals Decision (Rollo, p. 6).
13Rollo, p. 4. Trisikad is a cycle rickshaw.
14 CA Rollo, pp. 41-42. RTC Judgment.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 42.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 43.
23 Id. at 44.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 43.
28 Id. at 44.
29 Id. at 43.
30 Id. at 44-45.
31 Id. at 40-48.
32 Id. at 46.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 47.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 47-48.
39Rollo, p. 4. CA Decision.
40 Id. at 4-19.
41 Id. at 10.
42 Id. at 16-17.
43 Id. at 12-13.
44 Id. at 16.
45 Id. at 18.
46 Id. at 20-21.
47 Id. at 23.
48 Id. at 25.
49 Id. at 37-39.
50 Id. at 33-34.
51 CA rollo, pp. 22-38.
52 Id. at 31-32.
53 Id. at 32.
54 Id. at 33-34.
55 Id. at 32.
56 Id. at 34-35.
57 Id. at 35-36.
58 Id. at 53-73.
59 Id. at 61.
60 Id. at 63-64.
61 Id. at 64-65.
62 Id. at 65-67.
63 CA rollo, p. 46, RTC Judgment, and rollo, pp. 12-15, CA Decision.
64 CA rollo, p. 46. RTC Judgment.
65Rollo, pp. 12-13. CA Decision.
66 436 Phil. 98 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
67 Id. at 105.
68 Id.
69 739 Phil. 25 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
70 Id. at 45.
71 CA rollo, p. 42. RTC Judgment.
72Rollo, p. 12. CA Decision.
73 465 Phil. 368 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
74 Id. at 382.
75 19 Phil. 164 (1911) [Per J. Trent, En Banc].
76 Id. at 172-173.
77 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 14 states:
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating Circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:
....
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
78People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 239137, December 5, 2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
79Valenzuela v. People, 612 Phil. 907, 917 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
80 Id.
81Rollo, p. 15. CA Decision.
82 CA rollo, pp. 34-35. RTC Judgment.
83Rollo, pp. 13-15. CA Decision.
84 CA rollo, p. 47. RTC Judgment.
85Rollo, p. 17. CA Decision.
86 CA rollo, p. 46. RTC Judgment.
87 Id. at 46-47.
88Rollo, pp. 16-17. CA Decision.
89 CA rollo, p. 47. RTC Judgment.
90People v. Castro, 821 Phil. 992, 1007 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Castel, 593 Phil. 288 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
91 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
92 Id. at 845. cralawredlibrary