GR L 37366; (August, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37366-67 August 31, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISOSTOMO PACULBA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Crisostomo Paculba, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte for the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. The charges stemmed from an incident on the evening of July 12, 1972, in Salug, Zamboanga del Norte. The prosecution established that as victims Taricon Ringuit and his nephew Madjid Ringuit were ascending the stairs to their house, illuminated by a petromax light, the accused, who was hiding under the house, suddenly fired a single shotgun blast. The shot fatally struck Madjid Ringuit in the neck, killing him instantly, and also wounded Taricon Ringuit on the leg. The accused and an unidentified companion fled. The trial court sentenced Paculba to reclusion perpetua for Murder and an indeterminate penalty for Frustrated Murder.
ISSUE
The core issue on appeal was whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying and aggravating circumstances and properly imposed penalties for two separate crimes arising from a single act.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It affirmed the conviction but corrected the legal characterization of the crimes and the corresponding penalty. The Court held that the killing of Madjid and the wounding of Taricon resulted from a single criminal act—the firing of one shotgun blast. This constituted a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically Murder with Frustrated Murder. In a complex crime, only one penalty is imposed, which is for the most serious offense in its maximum period. Here, the most serious crime is Murder.
The Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed from a concealed position beneath the house against victims who were ascending a dimly lit stairway, ensuring they had no opportunity to defend themselves. However, the Court ruled that evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of prior planning or sufficient reflection time. Consequently, the proper penalty for the complex crime of Murder with Frustrated Murder, considering the presence of treachery, is the penalty for Murder in its maximum period, which is reclusion perpetua to death. For lack of the necessary votes for death, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed. The Court thus eliminated the separate penalty for Frustrated Murder and sentenced the accused to a single penalty of reclusion perpetua, with an indemnity of P12,000 to the heirs of the deceased.